WTC7

[skyeagle409]

It is very simple – WTC7 was deliberately demolished. The prior explosions and melted WTC7 steel are just a fraction of the evidence. The rest of the physical evidence was quickly shipped away and recycled.

No it wasn't and to underline my point once again, provide us all with evidence that explosives were used, and do so for all to see. Simply saying that it was a case of demolition without providing evidence isn't proof.

The valid reason offered for destruction of WTC7 is that it was the operations centre for the 9/11 false flag operation.

That doesn't make any sense at all when we didn't go to war when the USS Cole and the USS Stark were blown up.

Did we go to war when Libya blew up the Pan American B-747?

Did we go to war when explosives were set up in one of the WTC buildings in 1993?

Did we go to war when Al Qaeda blew up our embassy's in Kenya and Tanzania?

Did we go to war when North Korea shot down our surveillance aircraft and snatched the USS Pueblo in international waters?

My link

My link

The 9/11 attacks cost the United States billions of dollars and thousands of lives and now, we a defense budget cutback of billions of dollars and cutbacks in some of the Department of Defense priized projects. That doesn't sound like a good tradeoff in regards to a 'False Flag' operation.

If you make a claim that fire led to buckling of column 79, you have to show us the evidence.

What did the firefighter say? You have yet to provide any proof that explosives were used. Let's hear what Chief Daniel Nigro had to say.

Chief Daniel Nigro

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro

Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

My link

As Chief Nirgro has said, the " conspiracy theories are without merit."

Now, show us the evdence that exolosives were used.

Edited February 2, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Say what you will about Sky, but he has one heckuva collection of pictures!

[Q24]

I'm not really coming at this from any official standpoint, since I don't think they really needed to make any point, let alone prove one tbh. Had the fire service complained of being impeded from doing their work, obstructed or given mis-information as to the damage they had to deal with, or any complaint had come from them voicing concerns about the way the building fell (and I don't mean one or two people, but a general theme of discontent from the fire service) then I think the government would have something to answer for, or investigate openly.

You already said the collapse could possibly be due to demolition. How is that not reason alone to thoroughly investigate? Yet we did not even get a fire investigation to national standards.

Your argument does not make sense. If the fire service were impeded or given misinformation, there should be an investigation, but if WTC7 were intentionally demolished there should not be an investigation??

Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering magazine, wrote an article: -

$elling Out the Investigation

– Jan. 14

^th

, 2002

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

…

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA

921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

…

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.

…

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World

Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

…

Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.

The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

http://www.911hardfacts.com/docs/FireEngineering-1-4-02-BurningQuestionsNeedAnswers.pdf

Earlier that month Fire Engineering magazine had published, “WTC Investigation?: a Call to Action” requesting the readership of Fire Engineering magazine contact their congressional representatives to demand a full investigation.

I’m with Bill – there is no justification for the lack of real investigation – doubly so on the red text.

To me though, it was just a fire, in a debris damaged building, which collapsed, I don't need anyone to tell me that was what happened, I watched it happen....if there is something wrong with that line of events, and no one in the fire service is complaining about it (a fire service who's professionalism I have to greatest respect and trust in I should add) then the one making the claim that all is not right has to prove it with some concrete evidence if i'm going to follow their thinking. As it is, as of today, I haven't seen that...so i'm happy to leave all options on the table as to the cause of the collapse of WTC7, but a building collapsing due to fire is the most obvious and logical to me so far..

Do you even know what you believe? Judging by your reference to the debris damage, which had nothing to do with the collapse, I’d say not. Sorry, I’m not being funny, are you actually aware of the process described by the official collapse theory? The sequence of events NIST suggested was “extraordinary” by their own admittance.

I will set it out for you: -

• An expanding floor truss fell off its connection.
  
• This caused a cascade of the eight floors below to also give way.
  
• The now laterally unsupported column 79 buckled.
  
• This led to progressive buckling of the two local columns…
  
• And progressive failure of every other core column.
  
• The remaining external shell of the structure then came down as one section.
  

Yes, a truss disconnection led to this entire huge building entering freefall collapse 10 seconds later.

Are we all happy with that?

What rubbish.

This single unsupported column theory is all the more untenable when considered WTC7 was designed with, “enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity”, as the New York Times quoted Larry Silverstein in 1989.

Then have you read the report - the section on the possibility of demolition? What are they talking about, “Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a single critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise… ”

Listen: -

How did NIST miss it?

The problem with simulations, is that with adjustment to variables the buildings can be made to sing and dance if so wished. It is Bill Manning’s fear come true: “the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals”.

Why would anyone follow this nonsense?

They are all interesting questions, and no doubt the answers could be interesting too. We don't have those answers though, and you wouldn't convict on the small amount of detail we do have....that for me is why I won't buy into an alternative theory when there are so many unanswered questions.

The fact there are so many pertinent questions outstanding is revealing in itself.

The part in brackets is interesting...do you have any more about that, or is that 'coincidence' the start and end of what is known about that?

The Secret Service occupied floors 9-10.

NIST concluded maximum deflection of column 79 occurred right there, floors 9-10.

Officially no one died in the collapse.

However, a rescue worker reported pulling the body of a police official from the WTC7 debris.

This confirmed by the Congressional Record: -

Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:H51497

That is about the start and end of what is publicly available on that matter.

Anyway, come onnnnn…

Look at the clique behind the WTC business dealings.

The guy who oversaw the lease transfer to Larry Silverstein is another Jewish businessman, Lewis Eisenberg, who on the day described 9/11 as, “worse than Pearl Harbor” - the pretext and retaliation to be sought clearly foremost on his mind rather than the tragedy. These guys are close associates of Benjamin ‘9/11 is good for Israel’ Netanyahu and George ‘War on Terror’ Bush. The guy who recommended privitisation of the WTC in the first place, Ronald Lauder, is just the same – a close associate of all the above, a former U.S. Pentagon staff who also worked for the Israeli government.

Yes, it so happens those who conspired to transfer the WTC lease operated right amongst the Neocon/Zionist cabal that hijacked the U.S. government in 2001 – oh what a happy coincidence I’m sure! - the groups with an agenda to be driven by 9/11.

It is hopelessly obvious what’s gone down.

[Q24]

That doesn't make any sense at all when we didn't go to war when the USS Cole and the USS Stark were blown up.

Did we go to war when Libya blew up the Pan American B-747?

Did we go to war when explosives were set up in one of the WTC buildings in 1993?

Did we go to war when Al Qaeda blew up our embassy's in Kenya and Tanzania?

Did we go to war when North Korea shot down our surveillance aircraft and snatched the USS Pueblo in international waters?

You are like a child on the subject – no consideration or comparison of the background whatsoever.

The balance within the U.S. government changed dramatically in 2001.

The 9/11 attacks cost the United States billions of dollars and thousands of lives and now, we a defense budget cutback of billions of dollars and cutbacks in some of the Department of Defense priized projects. That doesn't sound like a good tradeoff in regards to a 'False Flag' operation.

It doesn’t make a jot of difference what you think is a good trade - since when did skyeagle run the country?

It is more important what those who came to power in 2001 considered.

What did the firefighter say? You have yet to provide any proof that explosives were used. Let's hear what Chief Daniel Nigro had to say.

This was long ago addressed in post #1.

You keep avoiding it and blethering on your merry way.

Now, show us the evdence that exolosives were used.

I continually provide circumstantial evidence of the WTC demolitions.

If you want more direct evidence you need to look at those who had the power to carry out full investigation but instead chose to remove the evidence.

Now, show me the evidence column 79 was buckled rather than cut.

The official collapse theory has practically nothing to back its claim compared to the alternative.

[skyeagle409]

The Secret Service occupied floors 9-10.

NIST concluded maximum deflection of column 79 occurred right there, floors 9-10. Officially no one died in the collapse.

however, a rescue worker reported pulling the body of a police official from the WTC7 debris.

This confirmed by the Congressional Record: -

Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed.

http://thomas.loc.go...7:FLD001:H51497

Even though the Secret Service had a fleld office in WTC 7, the field office was just one of many such field offices across the country. The field offices are interconnected so there is no way you can blow up evidence by blowing up WTC 7 because the government doesn't put all of its eggs in one basket.

How many Secret Service field offices do you see listed here?

Secret Service Field Offices

Edited February 2, 2012 by skyeagle409

[TSS]

You already said the collapse could possibly be due to demolition. How is that not reason alone to thoroughly investigate? Yet we did not even get a fire investigation to national standards.

Your argument does not make sense. If the fire service were impeded or given misinformation, there should be an investigation, but if WTC7 were intentionally demolished there should not be an investigation??

Whilst I appreciate your replies Q24, what I don't appreciate is you purposely misrepresenting what I said in order to make a point that has nothing to do with what I said. I never said that if WTC7 was demolished that there should not be an investigation, so if you could go and find the post where I said that i'd appreciate it....don't worry, I didn't, so save your time, what I said was I don't see need for an investigation with such incomplete evidence to support a demolition to begin with.

Earlier that month Fire Engineering magazine had published, “WTC Investigation?: a Call to Action” requesting the readership of Fire Engineering magazine contact their congressional representatives to demand a full investigation.

I’m with Bill – there is no justification for the lack of real investigation – doubly so on the red text.

I mention that if there was growing complaints from the firemen there that something underhand was at play, then that is the sort of evidence that would make me listen more closely...you reply with quotes from a world wide publication on fire fighting.....again, that wasn't what I said or what I asked for.

Do you even know what you believe? Judging by your reference to the debris damage, which had nothing to do with the collapse, I’d say not. Sorry, I’m not being funny, are you actually aware of the process described by the official collapse theory? The sequence of events NIST suggested was “extraordinary” by their own admittance.

I will set it out for you: -

• An expanding floor truss fell off its connection.
  
• This caused a cascade of the eight floors below to also give way.
  
• The now laterally unsupported column 79 buckled.
  
• This led to progressive buckling of the two local columns…
  
• And progressive failure of every other core column.
  
• The remaining external shell of the structure then came down as one section.
  

Yet another example of taking what I said and spinning off at a tangent, I said a debris damaged building that is on fire collapses...no where in that sentence does it say the debris caused the collapse...it's simply says a damaged building that is on fire collapsed.

If you were to read my posts for what they actually say then it would save you typing out your long lists setting out things that don't relate to what you quote.

Then have you read the report - the section on the possibility of demolition? What are they talking about, “Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a single critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise… ”

Listen: -

How did NIST miss it?

A time stamp on that audio would be interesting, and may help resolve if it is relevant or not.

The fact there are so many pertinent questions outstanding is revealing in itself.

It certainly is revealing....as to what that might be we probably won't agree on at this moment in time.

The Secret Service occupied floors 9-10.

NIST concluded maximum deflection of column 79 occurred right there, floors 9-10.

Officially no one died in the collapse.

However, a rescue worker reported pulling the body of a police official from the WTC7 debris.

This confirmed by the Congressional Record: -

Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:H51497

That is about the start and end of what is publicly available on that matter.

Thanks for that, I wasn't aware of any of the above quoted section...that is certainly an area that interests me.

Anyway, come onnnnn…

Look at the clique behind the WTC business dealings.

The guy who oversaw the lease transfer to Larry Silverstein is another Jewish businessman, Lewis Eisenberg, who on the day described 9/11 as, “worse than Pearl Harbor” - the pretext and retaliation to be sought clearly foremost on his mind rather than the tragedy. These guys are close associates of Benjamin ‘9/11 is good for Israel’ Netanyahu and George ‘War on Terror’ Bush. The guy who recommended privitisation of the WTC in the first place, Ronald Lauder, is just the same – a close associate of all the above, a former U.S. Pentagon staff who also worked for the Israeli government.

Yes, it so happens those who conspired to transfer the WTC lease operated right amongst the Neocon/Zionist cabal that hijacked the U.S. government in 2001 – oh what a happy coincidence I’m sure! - the groups with an agenda to be driven by 9/11.

It is hopelessly obvious what’s gone down.

I've stated to you before that warnings being purposely ignored to allow this to take place, due to ulterior motives is something that makes sense to me, and i've certainly never seen any good rebuttals to this....my postings on this board have had nothing to do with that though, i've only really commented on what people post saying is definitive evidence of a direct hand orchestrating events that day....i'm aware of your stance relating to the Neocon/Zionist agenda, i'll jump on a relevant thread though if/when I want to comment on that.

I have enjoyed this exchange Q, and thanks for your replies...but we just seem to be going around in circles...and i'm not sure there's much point going over the same stuff again and again.

[skyeagle409]

You are like a child on the subject – no consideration or comparison of the background whatsoever. The balance within the U.S. government changed dramatically in 2001.

You have failed to face the facts. You have provided no evidence of a government conspiracy nor evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings.

It doesn't make a jot of difference what you think is a good trade - since when did skyeagle run the country?

I have paid taxes and voted, so I have been doing my duty.

It is more important what those who came to power in 2001 considered.

Unless you can provide the eivdence they were responsible, you have nothing.

I continually provide circumstantial evidence of the WTC demolitions.

Where is it? Investiagators found no evidence that explosives were used.

If you want more direct evidence you need to look at those who had the power to carry out full investigation but instead chose to remove the evidence.

Now, show me the evidence column 79 was buckled rather than cut.

Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse.

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

The official collapse theory has practically nothing to back its claim compared to the alternative.

The facts have already been presented proving that explosives were not used.

[skyeagle409]

Then have you read the report - the section on the possibility of demolition? What are they talking about, "Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a single critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise… "

Listen: -

How did NIST miss it?

That is not the sound of a thermite-cutting explosion. Just thought you wanted to know that, and, the building was still standing.

Edited February 2, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I continually provide circumstantial evidence of the WTC demolitions.

No one reported the discovery of explosives in WTC 7 before the building collapsed, and that includes the firefighters who were in the building, and no one found evidence of explosives after the collapse either.

Someone made up the story and there were those who took the bait and ran off with it.

Edited February 2, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Sky is simply incapable of understanding the concept of circumstantial evidence. Beyond his powers of comprehension, it seems to me.

[skyeagle409]

Sky is simply incapable of understanding the concept of circumstantial evidence. Beyond his powers of comprehension, it seems to me.

But, you and the other 9/11 conspiracy folks have yet to produce any evidence. No one reported finding evidence of explosives before nor after the collapse of the WTC 7 building. Someone made up that story and the end-result was that te 9/11 conspiracy folks ran off with another false story.

Edited February 3, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

The evidence is all over the place Sky--YOU have failed to analyze it. You pretend certain evidence does not exist. You are so enamored of your "debunking skills" that you cannot see it is a form of kidding yourself, at least in some cases.

Was there a rank structure within the Virgin Squadron?

[skyeagle409]

The evidence is all over the place Sky--YOU have failed to analyze it.

Now, how amusing can that be!! I have asked for the eivdence of explosives and all I get are empty words of no substance. Empty words cannot be cosidered as evidence by any means No one reported finding explosives, not even the firefighters who were in the WTC 7 building.

Was there a rank structure within the Virgin Squadron?

Virgin Squaron?? What's that?? Now, where's your evidence that explosives were used?

Edited February 3, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Whilst I appreciate your replies Q24, what I don't appreciate is you purposely misrepresenting what I said in order to make a point that has nothing to do with what I said. I never said that if WTC7 was demolished that there should not be an investigation, so if you could go and find the post where I said that i'd appreciate it....don't worry, I didn't, so save your time, what I said was I don't see need for an investigation with such incomplete evidence to support a demolition to begin with.

I’m not “purposely misrepresenting” anything.

You said WTC7 could possibly have been demolished and simultaneously claimed there is no need for investigation. I responded that doesn’t make sense to me and added that even an area of the fire engineering community wanted a full investigation with examination of the physical evidence.

I don’t understand the following either: “I don't see need for an investigation with such incomplete evidence to support a demolition”. What do you think an investigation is for if not to uncover and piece together evidence? It is putting the cart before the horse in expecting complete evidence prior to a complete investigation.

Yet another example of taking what I said and spinning off at a tangent, I said a debris damaged building that is on fire collapses...no where in that sentence does it say the debris caused the collapse...it's simply says a damaged building that is on fire collapsed.

If you were to read my posts for what they actually say then it would save you typing out your long lists setting out things that don't relate to what you quote.

How am I supposed to know you meant, “debris damaged building” as empty rhetoric? When you say, “debris damaged building, which collapsed” then of course I will think you are linking the two. It may even lead others to falsely make the link. The potential error needs to be pointed out to halt the spread of misconceptions.

I’m also quite happy to type a list which highlights nonsense of the official investigation.

A time stamp on that audio would be interesting, and may help resolve if it is relevant or not.

It is sometime during the afternoon.

“[loud explosion (which NIST claim does not exist)] we gotta get back… 7’s gonna fall.”

I think it’s something a real investigation just might have looked into.

I've stated to you before that warnings being purposely ignored to allow this to take place, due to ulterior motives is something that makes sense to me, and i've certainly never seen any good rebuttals to this....

Larry Silverstein, Lewis Eisenberg and Ronald Lauder had nothing to do with warnings so cannot be written off that way.

These guys were involved in setting the deck before the event.

A compliant building owner was required to avoid problems in the aftermath.

I have enjoyed this exchange Q, and thanks for your replies...but we just seem to be going around in circles...

I don’t think we are going in circles.

I have asked how you justify the official collapse theory and NIST’s denial of evidence. I have introduced new alternative evidence, highlighted the Secret Service coincidence and presented further background information…

Thank you too.

[Q24]

Even though the Secret Service had a fleld office in WTC 7, the field office was just one of many such field offices across the country. The field offices are interconnected so there is no way you can blow up evidence by blowing up WTC 7 because the government doesn't put all of its eggs in one basket.

Once again, a complete lack of reasoned thought.

No one has said the entire U.S.-wide Secret Service was a part of the operation.

Individual units within the Secret Service, intelligence agencies and military can be a law unto themselves.

Every individual and department, government and public, over the decades are not part of some mega-brain; all on the same page.

There are various power factions with differing agendas.

Consider Operation Gladio – CIA/NATO stay-behind units embedded in the structures of European governments that the main body of the host nations did not even realise were there! Incidentally, Lyman Lemnitzer of Operation Northwoods and Ronald Lauder who facilitated the WTC transfer, in their respective NATO roles, would both likely have overseen Gladio. Not evidence of anything, just showing the circles these people work in.

I have paid taxes and voted, so I have been doing my duty.

That has nothing to do with the agenda of those who came to power in 2001.

That is not the sound of a thermite-cutting explosion. Just thought you wanted to know that, and, the building was still standing.

The explosion was good match to a linear charge.

Of course the building was still standing - in reality we don’t get a complete collapse from one column failure.

That only happens in official theory world where anything is preferable to demolition.

Someone made up the story and there were those who took the bait and ran off with it.

People, many experts, viewed the collapse and connected evidence and concluded the demolition.

Danny Jowenko is a structural engineer who was unaware of the WTC7 collapse. Upon viewing the collapse for the first time his unprejudiced reaction: “This was controlled demolition. Absolutely. It’s been imploded. This was a hired job, performed by a team of experts.”

Another 1,600+ architects and engineers agree with him.

Those who look into the subject with a critical and objective eye know the truth.

Government authorities and the media made up the official story - predictably much of the public were fooled and ran with it.

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Brian, the thread is about WTC7. No plane flew into WTC7. The official narrative states the building collapsed due to fire alone.

Edited February 3, 2012 by BrianPotter

[Babe Ruth]

Apology accepted!

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Apology accepted!

Was that towards me...?..hey if so... ...dont be silly.....i was right about the spewing bile.... ...

Edited February 3, 2012 by BrianPotter

[skyeagle409]

Once again, a complete lack of reasoned thought. No one has said the entire U.S.-wide Secret Service was a part of the operation.

Individual units within the Secret Service, intelligence agencies and military can be a law unto themselves.

Where did you get that idea? The field offices are all interconnected.

The explosion was good match to a linear charge.

There was no chemical explosion, and once again, firefighters and investigators found no evidence that explosives were used.

Of course the building was still standing - in reality we don't get a complete collapse from one column failure.

That also means that the sound you heard was not the sound of planted explosions going off to demolish WTC 7.

People, many experts, viewed the collapse and connected evidence and concluded the demolition.

Many structural experts have also said there was no evidence that explosives brought down WTC 7.

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.

As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.

Update:

The second paragraph above has been challenged by conspiracy theorists. For more information on this and a rebuttal read the update around the middle of the page.

Quote:

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we're heading east on Vesey, we couldn't see much past Broadway. We couldn't see Church Street. We couldn't see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

My link

In other words, WTC 7 sustained massive damage and the firefighters became aware that eventually WTC 7 was going to collapse, which had nothing to do with explosives.

Danny Jowenko is a structural engineer who was unaware of the WTC7 collapse. Upon viewing the collapse for the first time his unprejudiced reaction: "This was controlled demolition. Absolutely. It's been imploded. This was a hired job, performed by a team of experts."

Let's take a look here and see what other experts have been saying.

The Kink In WTC 7

How many people were arrested for demolishing WTC 7 building? None?! Where is the evidence that explosives were used?

Edited February 3, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Those who look into the subject with a critical and objective eye know the truth.

What firefighters, who were there, have been saying

Firefighters on the scene were told not to try to put the fires out in WTC 7 as the structural damage was too great and the building was making creaking noises.

From Captain Chris Boyle, FDNY Engine 94:

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post" **

From Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. ***

We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firefighters on the scene were told not to try to put the fires out in WTC 7 as the structural damage was too great and the building was making creaking noises.

My link

The firefighters could hear the structure of WTC 7 struggling under high stress loads and they knew that WTC 7 was going to collapse, which had nothing to do with explosives.

Government authorities and the media made up the official story - predictably much of the public were fooled and ran with it.

Looking at the facts, it is clear that the 9/11 conpiracy folks were pulling things out of thin air. So once again, where's the evidence that explosives were used to bring down

WTC 7?

Edited February 3, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Where did you get that idea? The field offices are all interconnected.

Interconnection does not mean every unit must share all information.

Why do I need to state the obvious?

There was no chemical explosion, and once again, firefighters and investigators found no evidence that explosives were used.

Are you capable of coherent discussion in any way?

I introduced video evidence of a loud explosion.

NIST said there was no loud explosion.

I asked – how did NIST miss the explosion in the video?

You have responded: “That is not the sound of a thermite-cutting explosion” and “There was no chemical explosion”.

How does that address the question?

That also means that the sound you heard was not the sound of planted explosions going off to demolish WTC 7.

It is circumstantial evidence for a charge used to cut a column in WTC7.

Many structural experts have also said there was no evidence that explosives brought down WTC 7.

Actually very few have stated support for the official theory.

Those who have are dwarfed by the 1,600+ architects and engineers who demand a new investigation.

There is no evidence the rest who remain silent have critically examined the case.

In other words, WTC 7 sustained massive damage and the firefighters became aware that eventually WTC 7 was going to collapse, which had nothing to do with explosives.

As addressed in post #1 of this thread, firefighters had high confidence of the imminent collapse because they were informed by external sources (this is the official narrative). Also the damage to WTC7 had nothing to do with the collapse (this is stated in the official narrative too).

Skyeagle, why are you opposing the official version of events?

[/b]The firefighters could hear the structure of WTC 7 struggling under high stress loads and they knew that WTC 7 was going to collapse, which had nothing to do with explosives.

That is utter rubbish – firefighters could not, “hear the structure of WTC7 struggling under high stress loads” whatsoever. Of course creaking will be a normal occurrence in any steel framed building fire where sections of the heated support structure expand or sag. The idea that firefighters heard “creaking” and thought the whole building would collapse is absurd. Heck I’d better evacuate my house every time there’s a strong wind that makes the roof creak. The bottom line is, “creaking” does not equate to “complete collapse” in any rational mind.

Even the official theory does not claim WTC7 was “struggling” in the slightest until seconds before complete collapse.

It’s disgusting that you spread this misinformation.

Looking at the facts, it is clear that the 9/11 conpiracy folks were pulling things out of thin air. So once again, where's the evidence that explosives were used to bring down

Looking at the facts?

You mean like…

“firefighters could hear the structure of WTC 7 struggling under high stress loads”?

You haven’t a clue what the facts are (see above).

Also, learn what circumstantial evidence is so that you might be able to identify it.

[skyeagle409]

Interconnection does not mean every unit must share all information.

Why do I need to state the obvious? Are you capable of coherent discussion in any way?

You don't seem to understand. No explosves were discovered by the firefighters inside the WTC 7 building before the collapse, and no evidence of explosives were found after the collapse nor during the clean-up operation, absolutely none, so where do the 9/11 conspiracy folks get the idea that explosives were used when there was no evidence?

The 9/11 conspiracy folks have ignored firefighter concerns that the structure of the WTC 7 building had suffered extensive and major damage and they noted the uncontrolled fires within the building, and the creaking sounds they heard was from structure staining under the stress from the damage. The fires eventually weakened the remaining structure to where the building collapse and no one heard any explosions at the time of the collapse and no one saw anyone planting explosives either.

introduced video evidence of a loud explosion.

There was no sound of explosives when the WTC 7 building collapsed.

Edited February 3, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

It is circumstantial evidence for a charge used to cut a column in WTC7.

What evidence? The clean-up crews did not say anything about finding evidence that explosives were used and neither did the firefighters.

Actually very few have stated support for the official theory.

With no evidence that explosives were used in the collapse of the WTC 7 building, the official story is very credible, especially after firefighters' remarks that extensive damage of the WTC 7 pointed toward eventual collapse.

Those who have are dwarfed by the 1,600+ architects and engineers who demand a new investigation.

I would welcome a new investigation just to prove once and for all, that the official story was right on the money, but then again, the 9/11 conspiracy folks would simply come back and claim the investigators were bribed and paid off by the government.

Once again, you have offered no credible reason as to why anyone would blowup the WTC 7 building. Blowing up a building to cover-up evidence is not a credible explanation when clean-up crews and investigators are going to through the debris looking for little details and evidence.

If you are going to hide evidence, you have remove computers and file cabinets from the building because computer hard dirves and contents within file cabinets can survive building demolitions and I know that as a fact after serving in Vietnam when many important files were recovered after the buildings were struck by rockets and mortar rounds.

In addition to the Secret Service field office in the WTC 7, its computer operations are monitored for misuse as is the case with any government computer system and anyone using government computers will have that little warning message pop up on the screen before they are allowed to log-on.

To suggest that the WTC 7 building was demolished to hide evidence is ridicules because that is not the way to hide evidence when government computer and paper files are spread across the country and around the world and are survivable.

Edited February 3, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

That is utter rubbish – firefighters could not, "hear the structure of WTC7 struggling under high stress loads" whatsoever. Of course creaking will be a normal occurrence in any steel framed building fire where sections of the heated support structure expand or sag. The idea that firefighters heard "creaking" and thought the whole building would collapse is absurd.

From the lips of the firefighters.

We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped.

And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.

My link

Eventually, WTC 7 collapsed as predicted based on the amount of damage sustained by falling debris and uncontrolled fires within the WTC 7 builidng.

GAITHERSBURG, Maryland -- The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."

Conspiracy theorists have long pointed to the collapse of the 47-story structure as key evidence that the U.S. government orchestrated or abetted the 9/11 attacks. No planes struck the building, and the commonly available views of the exterior didn't show significant damage. Yet, at 5:20 pm, 7 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2), WTC 7 rapidly fell in on itself. Since WTC 7 housed Secret Service and CIA offices, conspiracy theorists claimed that the building was destroyed in a controlled demolition in order to obliterate evidence of the U.S. government's complicity in the terrorist attacks. "It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.

Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

Edited February 3, 2012 by skyeagle409

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Was that towards me...?..hey if so... ...dont be silly.....i was right about the spewing bile.... ...

Hey...sorry bout that Babe.....im bout as quick as a sloth mentally these days...