Building 7 - Do you see it Fall?


#121

University of Alaska ongoing study into WTC 7 funded by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The current progress report goes into detail about the NIST evaluation.
A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7


#122

Oh no, no, how naive. They used wireless detonators, carefully placed to avoid damage from the fires and falling debris that they knew were coming. In the case of the main towers they had to place the detonators near – but not too near – where the planes would hit to make it look like the planes did the damage. But that was easy cos the planes were auto controlled to impact at the exact desired spot. And extra powerful explosives were used to hurl stuff outward and make it not look like a controlled demolition.

911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html

If you don’t buy it, feel free to make up your own crackpot story. I reckon one’s as good as another once you go down that rabbit hole. :unamused:


#123

Local UK radio show from last week featuring extended interview with author Ian Henshall for the first hour. Discussion about Building 7 and the wider situation around 9/11. Nearly 2 hours of discussion most of which is quite informative and balanced. In the second hour they talk about evidence for false flag terrorism in history mentioning the Dublin and Monaghan bombing.


#124

NG
Humourless snipes? how about


#125

Sixteen years later I’m still waiting for a valid explanation as to how two aluminium passenger jets can turn three steel and concrete framed skyscrapers into dust and molten metal. :unamused:

There is absolutely no doubt that the WTC was intentionally demolished and the whole event was a massive false flag.


#126

Don’t worry about how the buildings fell, that’s how “they” keep you contained. The really obvious staring us in the face false flag was the Anthrax attacks that followed, we know the Anthrax spores originated from a group within the US military complex. It’s estimated that up to 8000 man hours were needed to prepare this attack thus putting it beyond a single “lone nut”. The outcome of that case has implications for todays US politics.

Robert Mueller, Conspiracy Theorist - -> original.antiwar.com/justin/2017 … -theorist/

What the Anthrax targets tell us about the anthrax terrorist - -> newsgarden.org/columns/anthr … gets.shtml

911 Plotters Bury the Evidence of Anthrax as their Follow-up Punch - -> 911research.wtc7.net/essays/gree … dence.html

U.S. Settles Suit Over Anthrax Attacks - -> nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/an … ml?mcubz=1

The Anthrax false flag was highly successful and the plotters got away with it.

  1. The administration managed to frame Saddam Hussein to remove significant public resistance to the war on Iraq. Elements of the American military and political structure had been pushing for an Iraqi war since at least 1997, but faced public resistance. Here is a cartoon from the period that sums it up. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) comes in to being in the same time period and they got their catalysing event in September 2001. The PNAC relaunched under a new guise in the John Hay Initiative.

  2. The plotters removed any congressional and senatorial resistance to the “Patriot act”, even the US Supreme court was closed due to an Anthrax scare until after President Bush has signed in the legislation.


#127

I gather it was more to do with 7,000 gallons of atomised jet fuel and the equivalent of the same again in gravitational energy once you weaken some crucial supporting elements.


#128

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers … 11_attacks

Why would you use the citizens of your closest Arab ally to carry out this false flag?


#129

In the case of building 7 jet fuel, atomised or not, is not a factor. Fires fueled by office furnishings were stated to be the cause of the collapse by NIST last month after nearly 16 years consideration.


#130

“It is very difficult to get something to collapse symmetrically.”

youtu.be/RJ_jQgIEnI8?t=18m43s


#131

And can anyone explain why thermite was found in the rubble?


#132

Of course it is. The fires spread from WTC 1. Those were started by jet fuel. Fire spreads.

The bloke gets a lot of coverage for someone who’s basically talking ballcocks. I gather he has no physics or engineering background. That figures: a lot of what he says is total nonsense. For instance “if the top of the building became unstable due to the weakening of columns, one would reasonably expect the top of the building to start to lean, to start to creak, connections would start to break and the top of the building would fall off to the side”.

Uh, how could that possibly happen? Where would the energy come from to propel many thousands of tonnes of material off to one side? Imagine a large ship sitting at dock, which suddenly starts moving and floats right out of the harbour with no engines running? Does that sound believable? That’s basically what he’s saying you would expect to happen. Have a look at the buildings collapsing just the other day in the Mexico City earthquake that were caught on camera. Even with strong side to side shaking from transverse shear waves, most buildings come straight down.

Later he completely contradicts himself: “steel does not fly off to the side hundreds of feet due to gravity; gravity works vertically, not laterally… there has to be a force there pushing it to the side, otherwise it would just fall down to the ground”. Duh! So he complains about the top falling vertically, and then about the steel facade not falling vertically. Watch the video and think about the alternative he is proposing: every window, every square foot of facade would have to be wired with enough explosive to blast it to smithereens. It is nothing whatsoever like the other explosive demolitions in the video which are wired with cables to neatly implode. Of course, once the WTC tower is in the process of collapse, there is a vast amount of energy available to push the facade out – the kinetic energy of the pancaking upper floors which it is easy to roughly estimate must be measured in many gigajoules. In fact, according to the investigation, windows are blowing out a couple of floors ahead of the collapse just from air compression.

He gets even worse: “it is the law of physics that things tend toward chaos … it is not the nature of physics to gravitate toward order for no reason”. There’s no point even dwelling on that statement. That’s not physics. That’s bullshit, about on a par with quoting Einstein as saying “everything’s relative”.

And then: “why did NIST issue a report that seems to do everything it can to avoid investigating the most likely cause, in this case being controlled demolition?”. Uh, because there isn’t the slightest shred of evidence for it. If you connect the dots of what this guy is saying, he believes that every floor of the WTC was individually demolished by explosives. Otherwise he has to admit that the progressive blowouts of windows and facades down the building were in at least some cases the result of pancaking and not explosives. Why some and not others? No, his thesis is gigantic amounts of explosives – enough to blow off the steel facade and pulverise concrete – were progressively set off all the way down. And the control of these carefully timed charges was not in the least affected by fires raging on dozens of floors of the buildings. I mean, how clever is it to meticulously arrange the most dastardly false flag operation of all time, and then dump 10,000 US gallons of burning jet fuel on your carefully prepared scene? Not to mention that doomed occupants of the buildings were already reporting collapsed floors below them before this supposed controlled demolition began.

It’s not just idiotic. It’s offensively idiotic.

Well you might have to take that up with the controlled demolition conspiracists, since thermite is not an explosive. Maybe the exploding airliners and the rigged explosives were both just a cover for a crack team of rogue railroad engineers who cut through the building like railway tracks. :unamused:


#133

The NIST report specifically says that there was no dispersion of jet fuel in WTC 7.
The wind was blowing in the opposite direction (from WTC 7 towards WTC 1 rather than the other way around), WTC 6 was directly between them and fires were not visible externally in WTC 7 for over an hour and a half after WTC 1 collapsed.


#134

Correct, it wasn’t jet fuel. The NIST report says that the collapse of WTC 1 started the fires in WTC 7.


#135

By thermite I assume you mean iron or aluminum oxide. I cant see how there would be such material in the destroyed steel framed alum clad buildings.


#136

#137

YAWN. The second plane wasn’t a commercial airliner and had no markings, no emblems? You mean apart from the United Airlines livery clearly visible a split second before impact …

Try posting somewhere with a higher proportion of drooling morons.
(That’ll be your cue to remind me to open my mind. And maybe buy some of those $500 prepper rations that the shameless cunt who posted that video is promoting).


#138

:smiley: Just the reaction I expected from this indoctrinated older gentleman.
I knew that video would awaken you from your slumber. You appear to be extremely heavily invested in the official narrative of just about every so called conspiracy theory. (Sept. 11, moon landings, Agenda 21/2030, JFK, Gulf of Tonkin, man made climate change etc.)
I’m gradually coming to the conclusion that you’re a disinformation agent. :relaxed:

And the “prepper” stuff for sale is completely irrelevant to the content of this video.


#139

Gradually coming to a conclusion? I’d say you’ve leapt enthusiastically to it on the scantest of evidence. Of those six, I’ve never written a single word about three of them, and I have written against the official narrative on one. On the other hand, being “accused” of adopting the party line on 9/11 and the moon landings is a badge of honour, a veritable military decoration in the war against morons.

I can’t claim to have spent much time on them, as I consider the conspiracies contemptible and not worthy of a thinking being. But thankfully other people have done the work, so when you post a video making the most moronic of trivially refutable claims, the answer is only a few clicks away. Fascinating to see how you then get all butt hurt, and level insults and accusations. Does the fact of having being caught posting outrageous lies and transparently stupid propaganda not give you pause for even a moment? Or when all those insinuations about unmarked planes of unknown type turn out to be the pile of steaming horseshit that they are, do you just move right along to the next untruth?

Every time I think I’ve gotten to the bottom of the conspiratorial psyche – how it’s all about acceptance as part of a contrarian “community” – I get jolted back toward a much more uncomfortable conclusion… that’s it’s a tragic confluence of liars, idiots, and people on the make.


#140

Do not expect to hear about the latest 9/11 university study on RTE news: