WTC 7 Collapse - New Video Released

[acidhead]

-there may be no sound but the video speaks a thousand words.. you be the judge:

[el midgetron]

Its interesting that video footage is still coming out after 7 years.....

It does look like demo charges on the right side there.

[*Quinn*]

Doesn't seem like something that will change anyone's opinion of what they already believe happened that day.

I did notice two "flashes" of light that appear when the building collapses. The first one is right near a window that blows out towards the upper right of the building. Then there is a second one that flashes in the dust (more towards the left) as the building is still collapsing.

I don't know if it means anything, or if it could just be sunlight reflecting off of debris (though I'd imagine we'd see more flashes like that if that were the case), but it did catch my eye. There are some videos of WTC1 and WTC2 collapsing in which you can see these same type of flashes. I had always figured it could be explained away by the reflection of sunlight coming off shattered glass or something though.

[Never Here]

I don't know how much more can be said about this.The guy who owned the building took out EXTREMELY large amounts of insurance on all the buildings that went down weeks before anything happened.He addmited on T.V. that they decided to "pull it" wich is a demolition term.And you don't "just decide" to do a building that size without having already set thermate (not thermite,look it up) wich would take 5 or 6 hrs.And that's if you were in a rush.Anyone who is so blind to all of 911 is either not thinking,or works for them.Or just can't handle the facts.But it is what it is.No matter how horrific it is,the govt said let's do it.And they did.In the words of Dubya,"let us not give way to conspiracy theories"...he should have finished that up with,"cause i don't wanna get caught"...oh well,too late.So obvious.

[frenat]

I don't know how much more can be said about this.The guy who owned the building took out EXTREMELY large amounts of insurance on all the buildings that went down weeks before anything happened.He addmited on T.V. that they decided to "pull it" wich is a demolition term.And you don't "just decide" to do a building that size without having already set thermate (not thermite,look it up) wich would take 5 or 6 hrs.And that's if you were in a rush.Anyone who is so blind to all of 911 is either not thinking,or works for them.Or just can't handle the facts.But it is what it is.No matter how horrific it is,the govt said let's do it.And they did.In the words of Dubya,"let us not give way to conspiracy theories"...he should have finished that up with,"cause i don't wanna get caught"...oh well,too late.So obvious.

He took out far less insurance than he could have and had to be talked UP to that amount by his investors. Does that sound like a man that knew what was going to happen in a few weeks?

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

Pulled is a demo term but only when actually attaching cables to a structure and pulling it down. An explosive demo is most often referred to as a shoot. In the case of Silverstein, pulled could also refer to the firefighting effort which is exactly what he said later when asked to clarify

Note the red lined box in the lower left corner here

http://www.thestateonline.com/news/pdfs/implosion.pdf

"Pull" is only used if they bring something down mechanically (like they did with WTC 6) such as with a wrecking ball or pulling a chimney or tower over onto its side. Even then most companies speak of it as a "felling".

Check this demo companies list of projects. Do you see a pull anywhere? How about a felling, or a shot?

http://www.dykon-blasting.com/History/DemoJobList.htm

Even this kids DVD review mentions that buildings are "shot".

http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/showreview.php3?ID=395

with this quote, "they set a new world record for most buildings "shot" (industry term for bringing down a building or structure with explosives) at one time."

[Never Here]

Mystery speculator bets on disaster: Who’s sure enough to gamble $4.5 billion on Stock Market taking 40% nosedive?

By Pat Shannan -- http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/myst...speculator.html

Fri, 07 Sep 2007 06:07:00

A huge downside purchase of “put” options by an unknown investor or conglomerate in Europe has both investors and NWO watchers abuzz worldwide. Someone has placed a $4.5 billion bet that within 30 days the European stock market will take at least a 33% nosedive. Such an event would be tantamount to the market crash of 1929.

The two sales are being referred to by market traders as “bin Laden trades” because only an event on the scale of the 9-11 “terrorist” attacks could make these short-sell “put” options valuable.( A “put” option is a bet that a stock will go down. A “call” option is a bet it will go up.)

There are 65,000 pending contracts at $750 in the Standard and Poor Index. This controls 6.5 million shares at $750 or $4.875 billion. The entity or individual offering these sales can make money only if the market drops 30%-50% within 30 days. If the market does not drop, the entity or individual involved stands to lose about $1 billion just for engaging in these contracts. On the other hand, if the prediction is correct, the reward could be over $2 billion.

“The fact that the purchase was made in the European market is insignificant,” said one speculator with decades of experience, “because it could have been done by bank transfer from anywhere in the world. What concerns us is what kind of inside information could this group or individual have. It would have to have far deeper roots than just `insider trader’ knowledge.”

Two theories are being discussed widely within the stock and options markets regarding this enormous and very unusual activity:

A massive terrorist attack is going to take place before September. 21 which will torpedo the markets along with whatever other target is hit or, China, reeling over losing $10 billion in bad loans to the sub-prime mortgage collapse presently taking place, is going to dump U.S. currency in an attempt to topple all of capitalism with a communist financial revolution. Either situation could be catastrophic to the financial world.

The 9-11 attacks were foreshadowed by “put” options placed onAmerican and UnitedAirlines, as reported in the immediate aftermath. According to CBS News, the put ratio for United Airlines was 25 times above normal on

September 6.

In the week before September 11, “put” options in United and American Airlines went through a furious and unprecedented spasm of investment. Most of the investments in these put options originated in Germany through the Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank had earlier acquired Banker’s Trust, an investment banking firm whose vice chairman in charge of “private client relations” in the late 1990s was A. B. “Buzzy” Krongard.

In March of 2001, Krongard was appointed executive director of the CIA. On September 6-7, when there was no significant news or stock price movement involving United, the Chicago exchange handled 4,744 “put” options for UAL stock, compared with just 396 call options—essentially bets that the price will rise.When the market re-opened on Sept. 17, 2001, American and United, the only two airlines with hijacked planes, saw their stocks plummet by around 40%.

What becomes particularly relevant in the lead-up to 9-11 is the August CIA briefing of President Bush concerning the potential threat of attacks by bin Laden using hijacked planes on certain sites, such as the Pentagon and World Trade Center, and the fact that the CIA had bugging equipment on bin Laden messages and international banking operations. Although apparently no one has claimed the money from the “put” options, questions remain about Krongard and the CIA’s involvement.

“Put” options on Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch, two of the World Trade Center’s most prominent occupants, also spiked in the days before 9-11. The 9-11 Investigation Committee made no attempt to pursue this highly sensitive matter. The SEC never made public who these speculators were......and on a side note,would you argue with god about religion?How about ex-EOD about what terms are used?Im not gonna have a back and forth with someone about this because there is no need.Im not god,but i am ex-EOD.And yer signature says it all.So you believe whatever makes ya sleep well at night.As the old saying goes,"Ignorance is bliss." Have a blissfull day,~Never Here~

Edited November 4, 2008 by Never Here

[BlindMessiah]

If the US government was behind bringing down the towers then they are far more incompetent than I imagined, and if that is the case, would be incapable of concocting a plan to bring them down the first place. There is no logical reason for the US government to bring down the towers.

[Never Here]

If the US government was behind bringing down the towers then they are far more incompetent than I imagined, and if that is the case, would be incapable of concocting a plan to bring them down the first place. There is no logical reason for the US government to bring down the towers.

Blind,you know i respect you're opinion.You know this to be true.But i have to politely dissagree with you on this one,as i have even more info on this than even the general public.How?Not anyone's business.But i will say that everyone is entitiled to make a mistake,and on this one you have.Not only were the govt (ours) in on it,so was Isreal.For me to get into that,would be saying too much.Let the following lil snippet show how much faith you put into these guy's is a big mistake:

im gonna leave it at this point.You guy's wanna beat a dead horse,have at it.Im out.

[Never Here]

Blind,you know i respect you're opinion.You know this to be true.But i have to politely dissagree with you on this one,as i have even more info on this than even the general public.How?Not anyone's business.But i will say that everyone is entitiled to make a mistake,and on this one you have.Not only were the govt (ours) in on it,so was Isreal.For me to get into that,would be saying too much.Let the following lil snippet show how much faith you put into these guy's is a big mistake:

im gonna leave it at this point.You guy's wanna beat a dead horse,have at it.Im out.

Im gonna add just these two other snips,and that is because i feel a 43 second clip dosen't say enough.HERE:

AND THAT WAS OUT OF SYNC,BUT THOSE WERE HIS EXACT WORDS.Now,here is what some of hollywood had to say:

ok,now im out. Edited November 4, 2008 by Never Here

[*Quinn*]

I have even more info on this than even the general public. How? Not anyone's business.

Then why are you mentioning it in the first place as if we are supposed to believe you have inside info regarding the events of 9/11?

Not only were the govt (ours) in on it, so was Isreal. For me to get into that, would be saying too much.

So instead you bring it up, again stating it as if you are privy to top secret info, only to then offer no insight at all in regards to what you mention. It's a pointless comment. If you feel you know something that can't be said, then you are better off keeping that thought to yourself to begin with. Stating it aloud only to follow it up by saying "it's none of your business" or "to get into that would be saying too much" accomplishes nothing.

If you have something worth saying then say it - otherwise there is no point in making mention of it because you give no reason for anyone here to believe your claims are true.

Regarding 9/11 in general - I tend to believe there was a lot more to it then they tell us. It's just that hearing someone claim they know more about it than "even the general public", while offering no information about this supposed "inside" info, it doesn't come off as very believable.

[Never Here]

Then why are you mentioning it in the first place as if we are supposed to believe you have inside info regarding the events of 9/11?

So instead you bring it up, again stating it as if you are privy to top secret info, only to then offer no insight at all in regards to what you mention. It's a pointless comment. If you feel you know something that can't be said, then you are better off keeping that thought to yourself to begin with. Stating it aloud only to follow it up by saying "it's none of your business" or "to get into that would be saying too much" accomplishes nothing.

If you have something worth saying then say it - otherwise there is no point in making mention of it because you give no reason for anyone here to believe your claims are true.

Regarding 9/11 in general - I tend to believe there was a lot more to it then they tell us. It's just that hearing someone claim they know more about it than "even the general public", while offering no information about this supposed "inside" info, it doesn't come off as very believable.

Whatever is the case,i have no reason to lie,or say anymore.You have already stated the fact that you think there is more to the story then they give,and yet you have to question me?Let me just say this:If they are willing to kill more people than i can even keep track of,whats one more going to matter?So you calling me a liar only insults me,and gets you no answers.I already said im out,as in im done.This whole argument could go on forever,and none of those people that died can never be brought back.I for one don't wish to join them.And i did give away some info:Isreal.Go find it yourself if you want the truth.Or don't.But don't call me a liar just because im not willing to put my head on the chopping block to satisfy YOUR questions.

[*Quinn*]

I didn't ask you any questions. I didn't call you a liar either. I told you how it comes off when you make such comments and then act like you can't say anything further about them other than - "Oh, guess what, I know more than you guys do but I ain't gonna tell ya what I know"

Why make the comment in the first place? (that is the only question I've asked you)

[aquatus1]

The part that I don't get is this: People claim WTC7 was brought down on purpose. It was done with demolition charges, the guy said "pull it", etc...Then the counters come up, with the explanation of how the building fell, and what "pull it" means when firefighters say it, rather then demolition guys.

But when all is said and done, so what? The end result is the same. The guy who owned the building, regardless of whether he used explosives or whether he simply elected to let the building burn down, still made the conscious decision to destroy (to use a dramatic term) the building.

So, my question to the pro-conspiracy side is this: I cede your point that the owner of the building intentionaly let the building be destroyed. Now What?"

What does destroying the building with explosives give you that letting the building burn to the ground doesn't?

[preacherman76]

The part that I don't get is this: People claim WTC7 was brought down on purpose. It was done with demolition charges, the guy said "pull it", etc...Then the counters come up, with the explanation of how the building fell, and what "pull it" means when firefighters say it, rather then demolition guys.

But when all is said and done, so what? The end result is the same. The guy who owned the building, regardless of whether he used explosives or whether he simply elected to let the building burn down, still made the conscious decision to destroy (to use a dramatic term) the building.

So, my question to the pro-conspiracy side is this: I cede your point that the owner of the building intentionaly let the building be destroyed. Now What?"

What does destroying the building with explosives give you that letting the building burn to the ground doesn't?

The problem as I see it is, steel structures dont "burn to the ground". Before that day no steel structure has ever burned to the ground. Ever.

[chemical-licker]

i could see an explosion before it came down,

[*Quinn*]

What does destroying the building with explosives give you that letting the building burn to the ground doesn't?

The answer to that is simple - if explosives brought the building down it would be proof that the government (or some other group) had set it up for demolition before the events of 9/11. It would also be proof of the government deceiving its people since they claim it collapsed due to fire.

If it simply burned to the ground, then there isn't really anything to question about it's collapse.

My problem with any of these reports saying they know how it collapsed is that they do nothing to prove explosives weren't used to cause the buildings to collapse in such a manner. They simply state that if x, y, z happened then it would result in the buildings collapsing as they did. That may very well be true, but it still doesn't mean explosives weren't the reason x, y, and z happened to begin with.

Seems very strange that fire in any steel building has never caused them to collapse in such a manner, but then on 9/11 we have three of them due so all within a what - 1 mile radius of each other? What are the chances of that?

Edited November 4, 2008 by Left Field

[acidhead]

This Thread was Created to Discuss the NEW VIDEO of the collapse of WTC 7..

Anyone care to comment on the video?

There are many here who defended NIST report on WTC 7 released a few months back...

Does this video of the collapse match the NIST report?

Comments?..

[TSS]

The problem as I see it is, steel structures dont "burn to the ground". Before that day no steel structure has ever burned to the ground. Ever.

That's true. In any of the other cases of burning steel structures did they have buildings collapsing around them and debris rained down on top of them when the fires started? Obviously not, I can't see how it's a fair comparison then!

[acidhead]

That's true. In any of the other cases of burning steel structures did they have buildings collapsing around them and debris rained down on top of them when the fires started? Obviously not, I can't see how it's a fair comparison then!

comment on the video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what do u see?

[*Quinn*]

comment on the video... what do u see?

I see a building collapsing - what kind of answer are you expecting here?

Read my first post and I mentioned seeing the flashes of light in some areas - same as you see on certain videos of WTC 1 and 2 collapsing. I want to know what caused them - could it be the sunlight reflecting off debris, or is there something else causing these flashes that appear? That's what has caught my interest.

As for the collapse itself, I don't think this video will sway the common person's opinion one way or the other. If you believe it was demolished then you'll continue believing that. If you believe the official report of how it collapsed then people will continue with that belief. I don't see this video making people change whatever their current thoughts are in that regard.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Left Field

[acidhead]

I see a building collapsing - what kind of answer are you expecting here?

I'm looking for opinions on the NEW video..

There are many here who defended NIST report on WTC 7 released a few months back...

Does this video of the collapse match the NIST report?

Comments?..

[*Quinn*]

Does this video of the collapse match the NIST report?

I really don't know what the NIST report says (other than stating fire brought it down), so I can't really comment on it. I'm assuming most people here are caught in the same position.

That said, I know a few here have gone back and forth in lengthy discussion about it. The poster's names slip my mind at the moment, but I'd like to hear their opinion's on this video if what you are implying is that it in no way matches what the NIST report states.

[The Silver Thong]

I'm looking for opinions on the NEW video..

There are many here who defended NIST report on WTC 7 released a few months back...

Does this video of the collapse match the NIST report?

Comments?..

No the NIST report does not discribe the collapse seen in the video IMO. The NIST report is shaddy.

[acidhead]

I really don't know what the NIST report says (other than stating fire brought it down), so I can't really comment on it. I'm assuming most people here are caught in the same position.

That said, I know a few here have gone back and forth in lengthy discussion about it. The poster's names slip my mind at the moment, but I'd like to hear their opinion's on this video if what you are implying is that it in no way matches what the NIST report states.

-there are a few here who have argued the point, in favour of NIST, exhaustively...

i'd really like to hear their opinion on the NEW Video of the collapse and how it clearly, in their opinion,

coraborates the NIST collapse theory...

i know you're out there reading this

[Mr Honeybadger]

The video looks like a classic example of a controlled demolition to bring down a building. Especially the way it collapses inward on itself.

On a side note : Has there ever been an explaination for the large steel pilar from the Trade Tower that looks like it was sawed off at a 45 degree angle ? I know they talked about it alot in The Zeitgeist Movie.