Building 7 - Do you see it Fall?


My apologies, I mean to type 1960s. The design pre-dated the build.
This is a good source on some of the design failures:


What case? Your case was that I was an operative for the US government now. I did a charity job for them 18 years ago. And that’s information that you only have because I volunteered it. And by the way, it was a very mundane State labour and human services body, not a federal organisation even though there was additional federal assistance to NY after 9/11. (How much do you actually know about how the US government is organised?) Desperately wanting me to have an ulterior motive for disagreeing with batshit crazy conspiracy theories makes you sound, well … desperate. It’d be like believing someone was covering up the real story of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings because they worked in your local dole office. But those are the sort of leaps your typical conspiracy nut makes.

Your underlying assumption seems to be that “what the hell just happened” is different from what is stated in the official reports. Well, ok then – you’ve categorically stated that WTC 7 was “expertly demolished”. What’s your evidence to support such an unequivocal statement? Note: I am NOT asking for unpicking of the official reports. Unpicking someone else’s theory doesn’t add credence to your own. So specifically what is your evidence for a demolition?


What’s the source of that still image?


Who knows? It’s hard to find attributions, but one that is given is “Officer L. Perez”, taken from Brooklyn Heights. It’s very similar to a frame grab from the “Park Foreman” video.



Pretty weird indeed. DEWs perhaps. :zipper_mouth_face::roll_eyes:


“Unseen” footage of the demolition? Don’t you mean “seen” footage with added flashes? C’mon, you are now either trolling us or you are beyond gullible. Either way, goodbye.


Only to people unable to think in three dimensions. The guy in the vid said it looked black. That’s right, aircraft in front of a bright sky look black unless lit by the sun. In front of black smoke they disappear.

Or sunlight on the vertical fin.

No. Or, if you prefer, mind-bogglingly unlikely verging on impossible. In other words, no.

You said it, not me.

No, it really, truly isn’t. It’s an unremarkable low-quality shot of one of the many police and news helicopters we know were in the air. You’d have to be desperate for a conspiracy to give it a second look.


The youtube video was posted because it is pertinent to the thread topic.
It was not posted as evidence of demolition requested by ps.
But ps knows we’re on to him now, so uses this as his thread get out.


Only if you think obvious fakes that a 12-year-old could spot are “pertinent”. Do I even need to mention the obvious flaws … quite apart from the fact that the same scene is pasted all over the internet without the flashes?

Even though it’s titled “# Unseen Building 7 demolition footage on 9 /11”.

It’s clear you think this whole thing is a joke. Goodbye troll.


I found it. As I suspected it’s a photo. The grain in the image is the tell tail. You don’t get that from video and unlikely celluloid but you know that.


Apologies. I thought I’d mentioned it was a photo, but I see I didn’t. The video frames are all lower quality, but nevertheless some semblance of the UA livery is visible in at least six of the 18 video clips in the yt vid I posted. And the “Park Foreman” video (#14) is from a very similar angle to the photo. How anyone can be claiming the plane was “unmarked” or “all grey” or “of a military type” is beyond me. Sure, there is on-the-spot eyewitness testimony that said those things, but that’s completely understandable given the range of lighting conditions, angles, and distances from which the event was seen. Anything different would be weird. We can see plainly that the plane was banking and that it flew into the shadow of the smoke plume from the other building for some seconds before impact. And – I say this as someone who’s been teaching people to watch the sky for years – most folks are just not very good at analysing what’s going on above their heads.

And yet, el diablo posted a video above that takes every single eyewitness statement that differs from “the official narrative” and breathlessly assigns it some sort of massive significance. The same goes for all the other confusing events of that day. There are reports that the Pentagon was hit by a missile. But there are other eyewitness reports that it was definitely a plane. But the hole in the building isn’t big enough … because your average layperson is so super-qualified to know what happens to an aeroplane’s wings when it hits a massively reinforced building. Several eyewitnesses in Pennsylvania said there was no sign of a plane at the UA 93 crash site. Again, the lay authorities on what the crater should have looked like crawled out of the woodwork.

I believe conspiracies are made up by people who have no clue how to connect the dots in a normal, rational way.


ps has drunk the koolaid, drunk down hard on the official line, locked, stocked and barrelled.
But still parroting the ‘conspiracies’ line, fine, go right ahead – as a ‘stupid, moron, conspiracy theorist’ I’m getting too tired to even call them out anymore, maybe it’s just time to leave them to their certainties and just get on with real life, they’ll discover the truth sooner or later, not my problem anymore


Is ps Mark Walsh ‘the Harley guy’ from 9/11? (busily informing TV about exactly what happened before anyone else knew what the hell was going on)


Me too. I’m done with this guy.

[quote]ps has drunk the koolaid, drunk down hard on the official line, locked, stocked and barrelled.
But still parroting the ‘conspiracies’ line, fine, go right ahead – as a ‘stupid, moron, conspiracy theorist’ I’m getting too tired to even call them out anymore, maybe it’s just time to leave them to their certainties and just get on with real life, they’ll discover the truth sooner or later, not my problem anymore


I’m convinced you people don’t even look at your own material, you’re so busy trying to concoct conspiracies. Harley Guy says nothing remarkable. But look at what the guy interviewing him says at the end: “There’s a lot of concern that some of these other buildings might come down. This building right here with the glass that you see – the nearest tall building – that has structural damage as well. We saw a lot of glass broken out and a corner of the building appeared to be in distress, and there’s concern that there might actually be another collapse of that building.

So reporters were aware that building 7 was bulging and in danger of collapse. One reporter from BBC got it wrong and said the building had already collapsed. The conspiracists find it more believable that someone rang the BBC to warn them in advance. Except that still wouldn’t explain why it was reported that it had collapsed when it hadn’t. The conspiracy version makes no sense at all. On top of that, both the BBC and the reporter deny that they got any advance warning. Why would they make it up? Does the conspiracy now span the Atlantic and thousands of media employees? It’s frickin’ batshit crazy. And I repeat again: even if you can pick holes in the official narrative it doesn’t add one scintilla of credibility to the batshit crazy theory.

Same with that “shocked” Dutch demolition expert. He’s shown a video, which he gets no time to analyse (even if he was an expert at analysing video). So he just sees a building appear to go straight down (which it doesn’t, on which more later). Unless he’s shown more than we can see in the video, he probably can’t even see that the rooftop penthouse has fallen in before the building facade starts to come down. Hardly suprising that he thinks it’s a demolition. So now that the point of the video has been made, presumably the conspiracists completely tune out for what comes at the end.

When asked how long it would take to carry out a job like that he either doesn’t answer or it’s cut from the video. (I posted a BBC article earlier that said it could take six months). It’s not clear whether he’s being asked if it could be done in one day. Anyway, we hear him saying “maybe, if you had a team of 30 or 40 people”. He says that with extreme coordination, some people with cutting equipment, some people doing wiring, some clearing walls etc. etc. It matches the BBC article I posted – a building demolition requires alterations to the building, taking down non-supporting walls and weakening the structure before it is wired with explosives. Ok, and now you have to do all that WHILE THE BUILDING IS A FRICKIN’ RAGING INFERNO. And now the guy is completely stumped. “I can’t explain it”, he says. So there you have it – your demolition expert is saying it CAN’T be a demolition. The logistics are impossible. But, as I say, the conspiracists have tuned out by this point, having heard what they wanted. Oh yeah, and about the straight-down collapse into its own footprint … you do know that it did $1.5 bn worth of damage to adjacent buildings?


And just 'cos these things are so easy to knock holes in unless you’re just dying for every batshit conspiracy to be true, let’s tear one more apart:

So I took a bit of a look at that video.

It’s all very unclear which is why I maintain that you can infer practically nothing from it. But seeing as the conspiracists are convinced the helicopter dropped something just before the south tower collapsed, or maybe even landed and picked up people, I presume I’m allowed to make some observations. And unlike the conspiracists I’ll try to use as much actual data as can be retrieved.

You’re going to need to step through the video yourself to confirm this. I’ll tell you exactly where I am taking these screen grabs from. So, at 0:59 after the south tower has fallen, we can see the remaining north tower in reasonable isolation so that we can identify its edges:

I’ve marked two sides of it, L and R. What I am trying to do here is get the relative size of the image. We know the dimensions of the tower, but it is rotated relative to the camera, so we need to know the angle of rotation if we’re to estimate anything. Fortunately that’s easy. All we need is the relative apparent sizes of the two sides. Rounding the numbers for presentation here, my drawing program gives that as . It’s then trivial to get:

And given we know the tower is a square of side 63.4 metres (208 feet), it immediately follows that:

What’s all that mean? Those are the sizes of the parallel projections of the sides of the building onto the plane of the video image. Now we want to know how big is a helicopter. Well, of course, that’s “how long is a piece of string?”. We have no clue what sort of helicopter it is. However, you can make out from the video that it’s a single rotor job, and if we want to be generous we’ll make it as big as possible within reason. Remember, the bigger it is the further away it is for a given apparent size. So let’s make it a police helicopter.

Now we go over to Robinson Helicopter Company for this plan of a police helicopter:

From the tip of the nose to the centre of the tail rotor it is 8 metres. Great! All we have to do is compare it to our building. Unfortunately, it’s quite hard to get the copter and a measurable view of the building at the same time. Feel free to study it yourself. I grabbed this shot from 0:43 when the helicopter starts to become visible at the same time as the camera view lurches down the side of the building:

It’s all ridiculously blurry, but for the lines I have drawn on the left side of the building (L) and the helicopter (H), H is almost exactly one fifth of L, i.e. 8.2 metres. For such a rough and ready calculation that’s not a million miles off the dimensions of a police copter, right? But wait! That’s assuming we see the copter exactly in edge-on profile, and it’s quite clear we don’t. See these shots from around the 0:45 and 0:46 mark:

This is one of those times when it’s actually clearer to look at the video rather than a still, and I encourage you do so. Also, if the conspiracy nut account is true, then the copter is flying straight out of the smoke toward us. I don’t believe that for one second, but it’s clear that the craft is angled toward us. What does this do for the calculations? Very roughly speaking we have to divide the apparent length of the craft by the sine of the angle that it makes with the image plane. Or alternatively, if the copter looks about the right size when it is rotated, we have to multiply the distance to the towers by the sine of that angle to get the distance to the helicopter.

That means, if it’s a police helicopter and if it’s the size of the Robinson one and if it’s rotated at 45 degrees toward us, then it’s only 70% of the distance to the WTC (… and if it’s a smaller chopper then it’s even closer to us). Now I’m sure we could work out exactly where the video is shot from as it’s a news broadcast, but seeing as we can see it’s from across a body of water it’s definitely at least several kilometres away. And if the old WTC has the same footprint as currently marked on Google Maps, then the angles tell me it’s shot from a long distance north on the New Jersey shoreline, perhaps four kilometres away. That puts the helicopter well over a kilometre from the WTC when I measure it at 0:43. And if it got there from a standing start above the WTC seven seconds earlier, then it’s doing jet fighter speed of a thousand kph or so.

In short, it simply doesn’t add up. No way, no how. It did not venture anywhere near the WTC let alone fly above it. It is simply invisible when silhouetted against the black smoke. Feel free to challenge my numbers. Anything would be better than “muh grainy video shows a chopper collapsing the WTC, fer sure”.


Seems us ‘morons, stupids and conspiracy theorists’ (as ps200 likes to characterise us) now include the New York Area Fire Commissioners. Good company.

Whereas, the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries — not just airplanes and the ensuing fires — caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day;


Sounds very impressive and official, and they are all decked out in their nice grey fire department uniforms. Sounds that way but it isn’t. You say “New York area”, the article says “Franklin Square and Munson”. The Franklin and Munson district has a volunteer fire department representing a “hamlet” of about 30,000 residents.

But it is not the fire department presenting the petition but the fire commissioners. Anyone can be a fire commissioner. The qualifications are that you must be a US citizen, a qualified voter, and resident of the fire protection district. Many districts have empty slots, so you don’t even have to get elected, just write in and declare your candidacy. New York has an extra qualification … that you must not have been convicted of arson. :rofl:

These people are not fire chiefs. They do not necessarily have any qualifications in anything, not even fire fighting let alone explosives or demolition. The actual fire department has washed their hands of it, saying on their Facebook page:

Due to the recent vote by the Board of Fire Commissioners in regards to their resolution on launching a new 9/11 investigation, the department has received multiple questions and emails on the topic. The opinions of the Franklin Square and Munson Board of Fire Commissioners does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Chiefs, Officers and Members of the Fire Department.

Please direct all questions about the resolution to Commissioner Chris Gioia 516-488-1858 Ext 141

Chris Goia does have fire department experience, but as an emergency medical technician, and formerly the Marine Corps. He has not always got on well with the other commissioners. In fairness to him, he was involved in the grisly task of picking over the 9/11 rubble. But his “truther” outlook appears, from an interview he gave with Architects and Engineers for 9/11, to have arisen from reading their garbage and being persuaded by it. In short, this looks like a solo run by him or a couple of nutcases, perhaps driven by emotion. You gotta love how they declare it to be “beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries — not just airplanes and the ensuing fires — caused the destruction”. It’s such an open and shut case that they don’t know which it is, explosives or incendiaries or both. :rofl:

We know there isn’t a scrap of evidence for explosives in WTC1 and 2, unless you believe that someone managed to plan and carry out a controlled demolition on floors that just happened to be the ones struck by planes and doused with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. As for incendiaries, what, someone burned it down in case it didn’t burn down? Yep, morons, stupids and conspiracy theorists … your words but I’ll go with that.

But what about those lovely grey fire department uniforms? Apparently, as a commissioner you have the honorary right to wear one. Over on they identify two of the five people wearing them in that photograph. One is a pharmacist and one is a “litigation specialist”. No evidence whatever of any qualification related to fire-fighting… which is not surprising as the commissioners are volunteer administrators generally concerned with taxes and budgets etc.

Now how come you didn’t check any of this out? Do you just watch the Lawyers for 9/11 twitter feed and regurgitate it?


ps200 makes several good points, which makes it all the more mysterious his determination to look no further than the official 9/11 explanations. We all know how ourselves and others might be very reluctant to voice doubts over the official 9/11 explanation to work colleagues, but privately will be open to alternative explanations - so why someone posting anonymously on a message board would stick so doggedly to the government line without ever doubting a single aspect of all the events of that day is something that should intrigue all readers of this thread.
There’s something very strange in ps200’s unquestioning regurgitation of the US government 9/11 explanations, like some old time zealot having learnt the doctrine refusing to countenance changing a single line of it.