WTC Building 7
- Thread starter Sebastian
- Start date
Yeah, I knew. There was a brief stint about building 7, conspiracy theorists claiming the hours later collapse was clear and evident proof of the government blowing it up. 
It was a much smaller building than the two towers and the ridiculous forces involved with the WTC's crashing to the ground probably wreaked havoc on building 7 and it's foundations. I can't remember if it fell on it's own accord or that the police/military/whoever blew it because it obviously wasn't a safe building anymore.
Why the sudden interest in building 7?
It was a much smaller building than the two towers and the ridiculous forces involved with the WTC's crashing to the ground probably wreaked havoc on building 7 and it's foundations. I can't remember if it fell on it's own accord or that the police/military/whoever blew it because it obviously wasn't a safe building anymore.
Why the sudden interest in building 7?
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html
The Collapse of World Trade Center 7
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:
I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.
9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.
Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.” There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.
____________________________________________________
the history channel recently did a good show that shitted on all the CT bullshit. i'm amazed that even after all the information out there that completely debunks all the CT's "evidence" there are still so many people that desperately feel a need to believe the u.s. govt did this. whatever makes them feel better i guess...
the really sad thing is most of the stuff that comes from the CT's originated from racists and people that hate jewish people with a passion
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html
The Collapse of World Trade Center 7
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:
I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.
9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.
Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.” There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.
____________________________________________________
the history channel recently did a good show that shitted on all the CT bullshit. i'm amazed that even after all the information out there that completely debunks all the CT's "evidence" there are still so many people that desperately feel a need to believe the u.s. govt did this. whatever makes them feel better i guess...
the really sad thing is most of the stuff that comes from the CT's originated from racists and people that hate jewish people with a passion
^
Is there any possibility i can watch this show somewhere on the net?
And just by the way: The evidences are not that overwhelming that there is absolutely no place for doubt. Or in other words: Would they (meaning those who are in charge of it) release just one single sequence from a video camera showing the Boeing hitting the Pentagon, no one could say "there was no Boeing at all". Just an example.
Edit.: One more thing: The explanation you posted for WTC building 7 to collapse is not really convincing either. Well, if you know nothing about the collapse of this building it sounds logical but if you hear or know about other opinions, its not. At least not to me. Im not fully convinced.
Is there any possibility i can watch this show somewhere on the net?
And just by the way: The evidences are not that overwhelming that there is absolutely no place for doubt. Or in other words: Would they (meaning those who are in charge of it) release just one single sequence from a video camera showing the Boeing hitting the Pentagon, no one could say "there was no Boeing at all". Just an example.
Edit.: One more thing: The explanation you posted for WTC building 7 to collapse is not really convincing either. Well, if you know nothing about the collapse of this building it sounds logical but if you hear or know about other opinions, its not. At least not to me. Im not fully convinced.
There are three clips. One is from a 711 surveillance camera, one is from a hotel surveillance camera, and one is from The Pentagon itself. Only the latter shows an object hitting the Pentagon, because the others were out-of-position.
But I don't understand your point? You want them to release footage, then when I tell you that they did you complain because it's not good enough footage?
Are all the eye witness testimonies and all the debris not enough evidence?
But I don't understand your point? You want them to release footage, then when I tell you that they did you complain because it's not good enough footage?
Are all the eye witness testimonies and all the debris not enough evidence?
well the thing that people need to keep in mind with building 7 is that it was on fire for about 8 hours, not to mention the back up generators in it full of diesel fuel in them probably added a good deal to it's destruction and when you add all of the office furniture in there that burned quickly and added to everything.
as for the history channel show, it just aired this week so i dont know if it is on the net yet.
what people need to keep in mind with the footage that was released from the security shack camera is frame rate. you only see a few frames because those cameras on that shack only record about 5framspersecond where better cameras or even our tv's might do like 25-30fps. it's like gas station footage you see of a person robbing the store. one frame the perso walks in, then next he is in front of the counter, then he is behind it with his gun drawn.
it is a good chance there really isn't any footage, other than what has been released, of the plane hitting the pentagon. the camera footage that has been taken from other areas, like the hotel etc, might not have had anything on it at all. i know that the CT's often say that there should have been something on the cameras that were on the street lamps over the highway but those were on a live feed so unless someone at that exact moment just happend to have a recorder handy they werent going to have shit from them.
someone did a good job of debunking many of the CT claims on abovetopsecret.com i will post it the link later but he actually shows you an outline of the plane on the footage that has been released. the resolution and frame rate on that security camera is just not that great plus you take into account that how fast that plane actually was going that camera just isnt good enough and was never ment to pick up anything like that. it was just mean to get footage of cars and maybe peoples faces as they passed through the security shack.
as for the history channel show, it just aired this week so i dont know if it is on the net yet.
what people need to keep in mind with the footage that was released from the security shack camera is frame rate. you only see a few frames because those cameras on that shack only record about 5framspersecond where better cameras or even our tv's might do like 25-30fps. it's like gas station footage you see of a person robbing the store. one frame the perso walks in, then next he is in front of the counter, then he is behind it with his gun drawn.
it is a good chance there really isn't any footage, other than what has been released, of the plane hitting the pentagon. the camera footage that has been taken from other areas, like the hotel etc, might not have had anything on it at all. i know that the CT's often say that there should have been something on the cameras that were on the street lamps over the highway but those were on a live feed so unless someone at that exact moment just happend to have a recorder handy they werent going to have shit from them.
someone did a good job of debunking many of the CT claims on abovetopsecret.com i will post it the link later but he actually shows you an outline of the plane on the footage that has been released. the resolution and frame rate on that security camera is just not that great plus you take into account that how fast that plane actually was going that camera just isnt good enough and was never ment to pick up anything like that. it was just mean to get footage of cars and maybe peoples faces as they passed through the security shack.
The fire being there for several hours does not cause a huge building like this to collapse. Well, i dont know if there is a possibility but if it is, its low. So from a neutral point of view not really convincing.
The official FEMA report "admits": "Our best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurence"...
The hypothesis is fire + damage, basically what you have mentioned. Thats right, aint it?
If this is true, again, from a neutral point of view, its far away from being convincing when even one of the official reports actually states "our solution for the collapse is not really very likely".
If you should find it somehow, sometime...maybe you can give me the link.
I cant believe that there is no video footage at all that clearly shows a plane hitting the pentagon, or at least the plane being anywhere near it. It doesnt mean there has to be footage just because i think its not very likely there isnt, though.
The official FEMA report "admits": "Our best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurence"...
The hypothesis is fire + damage, basically what you have mentioned. Thats right, aint it?
If this is true, again, from a neutral point of view, its far away from being convincing when even one of the official reports actually states "our solution for the collapse is not really very likely".
If you should find it somehow, sometime...maybe you can give me the link.
I cant believe that there is no video footage at all that clearly shows a plane hitting the pentagon, or at least the plane being anywhere near it. It doesnt mean there has to be footage just because i think its not very likely there isnt, though.
if a building is on fire for 8 hours and all the material inside it burns up the steel structure is going to weaken. it wont melt but it will be hot enough to warp the steal and make it weak. with all the weight of the building on top of weak structure it is very much likely for a building like that to collapse
the problem with many of the early reports like the 9/11 commission report is they were too fast to put it out. they also left many things out for whatever reason. the early reports were more of a "lets come up with a neutral best guess at this time to make people feel better and quickly answer questions" type of thing.
even if there is clear footage of a plane hitting the pentagon what difference would it make? Ct's would still not believe it. they would say "spielberg, hollywood, the jews, all a coverup they are working with the govt, it was computer animation video, its fake"
on a different note a guy i went to school with, his brother was there that day and actually either working near by or on vacation ( cant remember which) but he said his brother actually has a picture that he took of the plane hitting the pentagon but will never put it on the net. but that doesnt prove anything and he could have been full of shit, even though he seemed to be serious and i have no reason not to believe him.
like i said before many of these claims by CT's have been spun so badly and many of them originate from anti-semitic and racists groups. i'm not trying to bash muslims and or arabs but many of them started over in the middle eastern countries in their news media spinning stories and from neo-nazi, jewish hating, news sites like american free press. many of the theories are, to be frank, very disgusting and despicable
the problem with many of the early reports like the 9/11 commission report is they were too fast to put it out. they also left many things out for whatever reason. the early reports were more of a "lets come up with a neutral best guess at this time to make people feel better and quickly answer questions" type of thing.
even if there is clear footage of a plane hitting the pentagon what difference would it make? Ct's would still not believe it. they would say "spielberg, hollywood, the jews, all a coverup they are working with the govt, it was computer animation video, its fake"
on a different note a guy i went to school with, his brother was there that day and actually either working near by or on vacation ( cant remember which) but he said his brother actually has a picture that he took of the plane hitting the pentagon but will never put it on the net. but that doesnt prove anything and he could have been full of shit, even though he seemed to be serious and i have no reason not to believe him.
like i said before many of these claims by CT's have been spun so badly and many of them originate from anti-semitic and racists groups. i'm not trying to bash muslims and or arabs but many of them started over in the middle eastern countries in their news media spinning stories and from neo-nazi, jewish hating, news sites like american free press. many of the theories are, to be frank, very disgusting and despicable
See, thats what you say. Other people say different things. And not just some freaks but some people who have knowledge about buildings collapsing.
Well, im not sure but the 9/11 comission report wasnt really out that fast, was it? Anyway, making a report and not covering every aspect, question, whatever is stupid. Is there any other report/inverstigation planned?
I know where you are coming from. Some people think Elvis is still alive so...but it would still make a big difference.
I dont really care where it comes from. All im looking at is the reason, explanations, and so on.
Well, im not sure but the 9/11 comission report wasnt really out that fast, was it? Anyway, making a report and not covering every aspect, question, whatever is stupid. Is there any other report/inverstigation planned?
I know where you are coming from. Some people think Elvis is still alive so...but it would still make a big difference.
I dont really care where it comes from. All im looking at is the reason, explanations, and so on.
any of the so called experts that are presented on the CT side, that i have seen, have been proven to not be as credible as they claim to be. but you may have seen someone make claims on it that i havent.
was the 9/11 comm really out that fast? it depends on how you look at it. most poeple would say it should have taken a lot longer than it did and should have gone on for a few more years. i dont think there is any official investigation going to be done again but i believe an independant investigation would probably come up with many of the same conclusions or similiar ones but in more detail.
i'll post more links up later on tonight, i would do it now but i'm doing shit around the house and will be busy for a few hours this evening.
was the 9/11 comm really out that fast? it depends on how you look at it. most poeple would say it should have taken a lot longer than it did and should have gone on for a few more years. i dont think there is any official investigation going to be done again but i believe an independant investigation would probably come up with many of the same conclusions or similiar ones but in more detail.
i'll post more links up later on tonight, i would do it now but i'm doing shit around the house and will be busy for a few hours this evening.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.