Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Zingari]

NIST showed (through simulation admittedly) that fire-induced disproportionate collapse is possible if not probable. Based on the info they had, that was their best guess, which I don't feel I need to blame them for.

Re: the video, I don't pay much attention to the CNN and BBC reports. NIST reports the firemen and officials there to have been anxious about WTC 7 coming down, having just witnessed the Twin Towers collapsing. Likewise with the whole 'brought down' account that the lady recounts. However, if the big blast sounds are genuine from those videos and can be traced to come from WTC 7 then I suppose there could be something about it. Would serial collapsing floors not make a big bang noise though as well?

listen to kevin ryan ( who lost his job for exposing this ) explaining how this was achieved

Take the testimony of the firemen having witnessed molten steel ( are they all in on any conspiracy ?)

Take the evidence of all the loud explosions than can quite clearly be heard by all of us

Take the nature of the collapse which so many architects engineers and demolition experts are now saying bears all the hallmarks of controlled demolition.

Take the evidence of the dust samples independently verified as having micro particles of iron indicating use of explosives

Take the fact that no steel structured building has ever before collapsed due to fire ( and by any standard of raging inferno this does not look anywhere near the worst )

Take the fact that the evidence was quickly removed and sold to Asian companies (some of the lowest bidders ) resulting in it being well out of the way for any further examination

surely anyone would be excused for being suspicious that all is not as it's been portrayed in the official version

[BoneDog]

Excellent video in the first post. Hats off to all the architects and engineers who are involved. Men and women of honour.

I find it astounding that some folk can still watch WTC7 fall (or any of the towers for that matter) and even though their eyes tell them that they are clearly seeing a controlled demolition, their minds somehow turn that information into "the building collapsed from a weak fire and a bit of damage". I think that alot of you are drinking too much fluoride! Not got the brains you were born with (which of course was the plan of the fascist pig asses when they started putting fluoride into our water, and other chemicals into some of our food). No offence, just a general assumption.

Even if the fire did start to melt a few parts of some of the steel columns (which it obviously didn't because it was an average office fire that soon dwindled out - impossible), the building still wouldn't have collapsed like it did. A small part of the building would have maybe buckled in the area of the hottest fire and the many, many other steel columns would have held strong. All three of those buildings could have burned for days and not buckled. Hecky pecky, even if you threw a small piece of steel, the size of a Rich Tea biscuit into an office fire, it wouldn't melt, but some people want us to believe that all of those massive steel columns were melted / weakened by an office fire that was bellowing black smoke (lower temperature fire)!

For the fire / damage to cause the building to collapse like that in an instant, all steel columns would have had to melt from top to bottom at exactly the same time. If they didn't, it would have been impossible for the whole building to implode and disappear as it did.

It's got controlled demolition written all over it.

[easilee]

It's a load of old bollocks.

Let's just say it was a conspiracy. How the hell are you meant to keep something like that a secret for a whole decade? You're giving the U.S. government far too much credit. George Bush Jr. and his mates were certainly not capable of pulling off something so huge-scale and intricate without it becoming public knowledge. Have you any idea how many people would have to be involved in something like this? Each and every one of them would have to be sworn to secrecy and have to make no errors in order to stop it being leaked.

Most people who want to believe this conspiracy rubbish just want to feel safe. They want to know that the people in charge of their country won't let anything bad happen to them, and don't like to face up to the fact that there are real foreign threats.

Just ask yourself, what's more likely - a bunch of religious fanatics hijack a plane and fly it into a building, believing they're the good guys and they go straight to heaven, or an inept bunch of politicians secretly plot and create a disaster killing thousands in probably the most densely populated city in their own country, and no-one finds out in the following 10 whole years? Even if they did want to create the illusion that muslim terrorists have attacked the U.S.A. on their own soil, why on Earth would they have to kill anyone? They could have made it look like they foiled a bombing attempt, or flew the planes just past a building killing no-one and destroying nothing, and still had exactly the same excuse they supposedly wanted to go to war in the middle east.

The more boring answer is usually the correct one.

Maybe ?

[Salieri]

First time i've watched that video, I try not to get involved with 'conspiracy theories' as in the main they appear to have little or no substance. But, having watched that it is very difficult to argue that it was anything other than a controlled demolition. I'd like to believe that wasn't the case, but the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

[OzFox]

I reckon Oswald did it.

Oh hang about...sorry...wrong conspiracy

[Fox92]

I don't think it was the government, or it was internally performed, like some say/think. Some videos may suggest that is was a controlled demolition but I don't believe it.

Whatever happened though, I couldn't imagine what the people that were caught up in it all were going through, like the people on the aeroplanes. It must have been more than horrible, it still kind of moves me abit when I see clips or watch the videos. Sad.

[Zingari]

There's a new DVD coming out soon ( early sept) from Architects and Engineers

http://www.ae911truth.net/store/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=145

This is a short trailer from youtube , so if you are interested I'm fairly sure the rest will appear on YouTube quite soon.

[purpleronnie]

Terorrists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings.

Thats it.

[Zingari]

Terorrists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings.

Thats it.

how many more times ?

WTC7 was not not not not hit by an aeroplane .

did you actually watch the video ?

[purpleronnie]

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

[Zingari]

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

I have read it before , and do you imagine that the growing number of architects and engineers who do not believe the official version have not read this and more, including the official nist report as well ?

Do you really believe they are unaware of these supposed debunking theories ?

Aeroplanes flew into buildings on that day That much is obvious with regard to wtc 1 and 2 , but what is not so obvious is what caused both those 2 buildings plus wtc 7 to totally collapse

While it may be possible to ascribe the aircraft impact as being a factor in 1 and 2 , that isn’t possible in building 7 and this is the big problem .

In the history of steel framed buildings there has never been a collapse due to fire.( and this is what nist is claiming )

Although there may have been some damage to wtc 7 from the collapse of the north tower , it cannot have been particularly significant as there are no official claims of massive damage and nist have called it insignificant and not a factor in the collapse ( this is clearly stated in the official nist report and presented on the video by the nist spokesperson )

if you think it's easier to believe in a hypothesis that has a low chance of occurrence ( nists own words ) , rather than the very real probability of controlled demolition , that's fine , but it's you are choosing the unlikely explanation , not the A&E for 911 Truth

Hopefully in time we will learn what really happened , but if JFK is anything to go by , I am not expecting to see it in my time

[shen]

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Fail. The guy is just as zealous as some conspiracy theorists. He spends all that time to point out the damage done to WTC 7 by the tower debris and arguing that fuel was helping the fire. Both of which have been discarded as having any discernable effect in the collapse of the building in the official NIST report. I very much doubt he's actually read even the executive summary from that report as that would've shortened his rant to five sentences tops.

I had a long discussion about this with a colleague (we've discussed 9/11 several times before as he strongly distances himself from any conspiracies). In conclusion, he owned up to purposely dismissing any claim that isn't supported by indisputable facts for the sole reason, that he doesn't WANT to believe an act as cynical as e.g. an insider job could really have happened here. As naïve as I think that is, I really don't blame him for that.

[l444ry]

The jets that crashed were not piloted by hijackers, but by "advanced robotics and remote-control technology."

So the video footage of "men of middle-eastern descent" boarding each of the aircraft was falsified, the cockpit voice recordings were falsified, the ground service crew, mechanics, and flight crew of the four aircraft didn't notice any of the advancedroboticsandremotecontroltechnology while prepping the aircraft, body parts of known terrorists were planted at the crash sites, the live phone conversations between crew, passengers, and their loved ones on the ground were implanted memories and falsified recordings, and the Flight 93 passengers actually wrestled with some hidden robotic equipment, not terrorists.

Must have been an "inside job" then!!

[Zingari]

Fail. The guy is just as zealous as some conspiracy theorists. He spends all that time to point out the damage done to WTC 7 by the tower debris and arguing that fuel was helping the fire. Both of which have been discarded as having any discernable effect in the collapse of the building in the official NIST report. I very much doubt he's actually read even the executive summary from that report as that would've shortened his rant to five sentences tops.

I had a long discussion about this with a colleague (we've discussed 9/11 several times before as he strongly distances himself from any conspiracies). In conclusion, he owned up to purposely dismissing any claim that isn't supported by indisputable facts for the sole reason, that he doesn't WANT to believe an act as cynical as e.g. an insider job could really have happened here. As naïve as I think that is, I really don't blame him for that.

This is very observant and probably the basis for most arguments against any alternative explanations Shen, and I’m starting to believe that it is much more widespread than I previously thought was possible.

Maybe it is best to let people keep their safe and comfy view of the world , because after all , there is probably fook all we can do about it anyway

[Zingari]

The jets that crashed were not piloted by hijackers, but by "advanced robotics and remote-control technology."

So the video footage of "men of middle-eastern descent" boarding each of the aircraft was falsified, the cockpit voice recordings were falsified, the ground service crew, mechanics, and flight crew of the four aircraft didn't notice any of the advancedroboticsandremotecontroltechnology while prepping the aircraft, body parts of known terrorists were planted at the crash sites, the live phone conversations between crew, passengers, and their loved ones on the ground were implanted memories and falsified recordings, and the Flight 93 passengers actually wrestled with some hidden robotic equipment, not terrorists.

Must have been an "inside job" then!!

i'm really at a loss as to what any of this has to do with the collapse of WTC 7 but if it makes you feel better to rant away , good luck

[l444ry]

i'm really at a loss as to what any of this has to do with the collapse of WTC 7 but if it makes you feel better to rant away , good luck

Thing is Zinger, the whole conspiracy of 9/11 must be taken as a whole. It's a bit of a cheek choosing one element of the event and knocking back other parts because it doesn't suit your argument.

[Zingari]

Thing is Zinger, the whole conspiracy of 9/11 must be taken as a whole. It's a bit of a cheek choosing one element of the event and knocking back other parts because it doesn't suit your argument.

No it doesn't , if we can concentrate on this event alone we can of course deduce that we have been lied to and then try and ascertain why and to what extent ,and who was involved etc etc , and then we can start on trying to piece together what really happened .

Disbelieving something does not mean anyone has all the answers.

For instance you do not believe the McCanns story regarding Maddie( and i respect you challenging the story if you feel it does not add up ) but surely you are not going to claim to know the whole truth 100% , but you can of course speculate about alternative explanations .

But you really are jumping the gun to say that anyone questioning a seemingly impossible event needs to then accept a whole raft of alternative explanations .

[l444ry]

No it doesn't , if we can concentrate on this event alone we can of course deduce that we have been lied to and then try and ascertain why and to what extent ,and who was involved etc etc , and then we can start on trying to piece together what really happened .

Disbelieving something does not mean anyone has all the answers.

For instance you do not believe the McCanns story regarding Maddie( and i respect you challenging the story if you feel it does not add up ) but surely you are not going to claim to know the whole truth 100% , but you can of course speculate about alternative explanations .

But you really are jumping the gun to say that anyone questioning a seemingly impossible event needs to then accept a whole raft of alternative explanations .

Ok!! Let's call an early truce. I still think this is a more realistic version of events though.....

[Zingari]

i bet danny jowenko , richard gage and all the others at AE 911 will be convinced by that l444ry

no mention of molten steel or microbes of iron in the dust , no mention of the explosions , oh well

[Webbo]

There's a programme on BBC 2 on Monday about the conspiracy theories.I don't suppose anyone will change their minds but it might be interesting.

[Zingari]

There's a programme on BBC 2 on Monday about the conspiracy theories.I don't suppose anyone will change their minds but it might be interesting.

Thanks for that looks interesting

The fact that so many are still banging on about it after 10 years indicates some degree of genuine disbelief in the official version .

And i really don't think this is going to go away any time soon . In fact if anything , it seems to be gaining momentum

[Rincewind]

A collapsing building would give a lot of noise and if there was any chemicals gases etc any fire would ignite them giving offwhat may sound like an explosion. or probably a series of explosions some unheard because of the noise of the building collapsing. The explanation seems reasonable to me.

[Zingari]

A collapsing building would give a lot of noise and if there was any chemicals gases etc any fire would ignite them giving offwhat may sound like an explosion. or probably a series of explosions some unheard because of the noise of the building collapsing. The explanation seems reasonable to me.

The fact that it's never happened before or since to buildings with far greater damage and far bigger fires doesn't concern you ?

Have you ever seen or heard of a total collapse of any steel structured building anywhere in the world falling down completely , almost symmetrically and at close to freefall ? buildings only do this by controlled demolition

Sorry, but it just does not add up , and too many structural engineers , architects and demolition experts are coming out and saying so ( and a great deal of courage is needed for them to do this )

edit;

oh and i forgot to say that the explosions can be clearly heard prior to the collapse not during , that also inclines me to believe in controlled demolition

[shen]

Ok!! Let's call an early truce. I still think this is a more realistic version of events though.....

For the Xth time:

1) The damage from the second tower collapse was irrelevant to the collapse of WTC 7

2) The fires were ONLY fuelled by office combustibles (paper, furniture, etc.)

3) The firemen accounts that the building 'was about to collapse' was attributed to the very recently collapsing towers

This is stated in the OFFICIAL so-called INDEPENDENT NIST REPORT ON THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7!! I'd strongly suggest that you glance over it, just to stop such smoke screens as the one you posted clogging up the minds of people...

I'll even be so nice as to provide you the link

[marko]

For the Xth time:

1) The damage from the second tower collapse was irrelevant to the collapse of WTC 7

2) The fires were ONLY fuelled by office combustibles (paper, furniture, etc.)

3) The firemen accounts that the building 'was about to collapse' was attributed to the very recently collapsing towers

This is stated in the OFFICIAL so-called INDEPENDENT NIST REPORT ON THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7!! I'd strongly suggest that you glance over it, just to stop such smoke screens as the one you posted clogging up the minds of people...

I'll even be so nice as to provide you the link

There were also large stores of diesel, if i'm not mistaken.