lololoolloolololloloollolololololololololoolo to you fuckers :D lololololololololoklolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololokolololololololololol olololololloolololololololololoolololololoolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololoolololololololololoolololololollolololololoolloolololoolololololololololololoolloollollllllllollollolololololollololololollololololololololololoollllolololoolololololololoooololollolololololololololo
And let me say this to you insanedrummer, even though I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, Bush would've killed his own people if it meant continuing the established order that he brought forth. Now, I do believe that Bush & his administration allowed 9/11 to happen, which is quite obvious, & took advantage of that day, due to the suddence of the patriot acts 1 & 2 brought forth & the sudden issue of us taking part in now 2 wars.
Actually, with the precollapse of the penthouse, the real collapse becomes around 14 seconds which is double than a free-fall collapse. So it wasn't free-fall. And the "squibs" aren't squibs. Notice on the left side of the building, during the 2nd part, & you'll see the same blackened areas before the collapse. These are open window blinds. So during the collapse, we have a good amount of window blinds on the right opening as well, which is completely logical. So it wasn't an inside job.
exactly. I thought the free fall argument was their strongest point? This video dispels that bull shit and yet they still try and use it to their advantage. Look at the misrepresentation in the description.>>> "The first shows the rooftop penthouse collapsing a split second before the rest of the building"
Really? a split second? learn how to count it's more like 5 or 6 seconds then the rest of the building making the total time of collapse way longer than free fall.
I do believe it's very possible that building was brought down by prepositioned explosives, but I am wondering why the penthouse falling in makes it more likely that it was a controlled demolition. Why does it matter?
it is amazing how reluctant people are to engage with the physical evidence about this event. Rgardless of 'conspiracy theory' this or that, when you take a cold, hard, scientific look at this building and its demise, the physical evidence does not support the explanation that wtc7 fell down through some combination of damage from the twin towers and subsequent fires. This explanation is not at all consistent with the physical evidence.
To all those who still think WT7 was NOT a demolition job how do you explain Silversteins' comments on National TV (which he never later attempted to retract) of "we pulled it"? What the hell do you think he meant by that comment? that all the FDNY guy's grabbed the building walls and physically tried to pull it down? of course not. Pulled means demolition using charges which means this was planned weeks if not months in advance, just like WTC 1 and 2. Period
that is a completely dontrolle demolition if u watch when the building beins to fall it slopes in the middle...when demolitions take place they blow out a section of the middle of the building first so it falls in on itself and not around its self...
WOW a bldg actually fell in towards a gaping massive hole that firefighters say ripped out 25% of the bldg and all the supporting trusses - and then fell hours after firefighters heard creaking sounds in the bldg and abandoned the effort to save it - damn IT MUST BE AN INSIDE JOB!!! WAKE UP YOU STUPID AMERICAN WHITE TRASH
When a building starts leaning and is on fire... and firefighters CAN'T put it out..... it will fall.
Implosions take 100's of rapid detonation charges. There is NO AUDIO of rapid explosions when the building fell. There are no flashes from explosions.
BUILDING SEVEN DID NOT IMPLODE BECAUSE OF A SMaLL FIRE STARTED FROM DEBRIS FROM BUILDING BLOCKS AND BLOCKS AWAY (ARE YOU RETARDED?) AND IT WAS NOT A PLANE THAT FLEW INTO THE PENTAGON .. BECAUSE THE WINDOWS WERE INTACT ON EITHER SIDE OF THE "HOLE" WHICH MEANS A MISSLE IS MORE LIKELY .. THESE TWO THINGS ARE FOR REAL PEOPLE .. LOOK FOR YOURSELF ... LOOK AT THE NEWS FOOTAGE YOURSELVES ... SO THE QUESTION IS .....WHY THE LIES ..... just try to find the truth
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
hey retard, a 1000 ft bldg fell in on it and gashed out 25% of the bldg from the center and many of the supporting trusses - no 100s of demolition charges -NO CONSPIRACY - it only fell hours after firefighters heard it creaking and abandoned it - AMAZING - but I do have a soul trapped in a bottle that I'd like to sell you on ebay
There was substantial damage to one corner of the bldg effectively making that corner almost worthless as support. BUT, BUT the collapse started when the penthouse collapsed first because of a loss of collum support ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BLDG. That's what makes this suspicious as hell not to mention bombs going off in the bldg. Youtube: "Seven is Exploding" and watch it to the very end and you'll be asking q's too!
to my mind, it was clearly a controlled demolition. leaseholder larry silverstein has admitted as much... the penthouse caving in is blatant, but those squibs running up the walls appear to just be reflections from the windows as they buckle.
The government loyalists CANNOT be convinced, partially because it is so obvious that blg 7 fell from controlled demo, and partially because they REFUSE to be convinced. These people are like someone staring at the sun and defiantly declaring that the sun's not up. The government loyalists have denied so much obvious evidence that NOTHING can get through their skulls at this point. We gotta let em be sheep.
I am no engineer but I know that building 7did not get hit by a plane, and it fell the same as the other two towers did! Even when controlled demolition happens, it's hard for them to fall exactly where they want.
Whom ever planned this out was brilliant, because they got away with it! Building 7 is what makes this thing so suspicious!!
it is simply that poetry hound has not done his homework. There are owners of demolition companies on record saying this is controlled demolition, indeed, it could be nothing other and 2; He is correct that there is no evidence for thermite, however the evidence for the use of thermate is overwhelming. Not just video from prior collapse of molten metal streaming from the tower side, but also from samples taken from ground zero
After 9/11 I realized that there's no need of demolition experts .Just set fire to the buildings and watch 'em fall down into ashes onto their own footprint!!!
"Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower." -- FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan
Minutes after the south tower collapsed at the World Trade Center, police helicopters hovered near the remaining tower to check its condition. "About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red," the pilot of one helicopter, Aviation 14, radioed at 10:07 a.m. "It's inevitable."
Seconds later, another pilot reported: "I don't think this has too much longer to go. I would evacuate all people within the area of that second building."
"We could feel the building starting to twist above us. I called Ladder 10 three times, Ladder 10 roof to Ladder 10. There was no answer. I said we have to evacuate, the building's coming down. Again, there was no response" -- Firefighter Mike Cancel, Ladder 10
oh come on man... don't you want to believe your own eyes?
Take a step back, open your mind to the possibility that we are all being lied to.
Osama is left handed but in the confession tape he writes with his right hand. That tape was found in Afganistan by US troops.
btw the invastion of Afganistan was already planned... the order to invade had been signed on sept 10th... the same day FEMA arrived in NY in prep for the attack.
I was responding to your assertion that the eyewitnesses are credible. I've responded to that but you didnt acknowledge my respons and instead changed the subject to bin Laden. I don't feel like playing the endless What-about-this-What-about-that game. So let's stick with 1 thing at a time. Do you think these witnesses I cited are lying?
fair enough. you're right, I changed the subject. Let's have a look at this one thing at a time then...
I don't think that any of those witnesses were lying. I believe that their testomony is conststent with my view: the fires were relatively small. According to the laws of thermodynamics the heat would have dispersed through out the entire structure via thermal conductivity.
It wouldn't have "moved on" (like you suggest) leaving a cold spot where it had once been blazing.
"I believe that their testomony is conststent with my view: the fires were relatively small."
There's nothing in anything I posted where they say the fires were small. FDNY Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory even siad the fires were "heavy." The others talked about how the bldg was glowing red, moving, and twisting, & they were concerned it would collapse. That doesn't sound like a demolition.
The Twin Towers were designed to twist and sway. They were doing so because explosions were going off in the towers, and the core was being melted by thermite.
Many things cause explosions in a fire. What sort of demo charges go off randomly up to an hour before collapse & result in no apparent structural weakening. There's no evidence of any explosives or thermite use. That's probably why not a single demolition expert says explosives /incendiaries brought down the towers.
For anyone interested in the scientific & factual analysis of WTC 7 & not unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense, read NIST's interim report by googling NIST appendix L.
Here's an article by a physicist and mechanical engineer:
w w w. counterpunch. org/darkfire11282006.html
Here's a large amount of info that debunks all the WTC 7 myths:
Use your eyes. NIST is biased. There are plenty of people who disagaree.
Did you know that explosive residue was found in the tower's rubble?
They tell you that an orange is an apple, and you believe them. That's ok... if it keeps you happy. but oneday you'll see. We all will... that the level of corruption in the US Government has reached bewildering proportions.
Jannette Mackinley had an apartment near ground zero whose front window was broken by the collapse of one of the buildings. For some reason, an artistic impulse, she collected some of the dust. When she learned that there was a physicist doing a study, she gave him the dust. The physicist, Dr. Steven Jones, conducted tests and found concentrations of zinc, manganese, and sulfur that were consistent with the use of an explosive, thermate, and inconsistent with any other theoretical explanation.
You're right about everything except the last 2 lines. Thermate isn't an explosive. It's an incendiary. More importantly, Jones did not rule out other explanations for the presence of these elements, he simply didn't address them. Others have.
ok, the concentrations of sulfur, zinc and magnesium may not have been thermite... but it is the easiest way to explain it.
It's like the model of the solar system... you can say the earth is the center, and the paths of the planets in the sky follow complex orbits around us... or you can say the sun is the center.
saying the buildings were demolished is the simpler explanation for all the observed phenomia and physical evidence.
How do you know if thermite is the easiest way to explain the presence of sulfur, zinc and magnesium? What would be some the less easy explanations? BTW, sulfur isn't a byproduct of a thermite reaction. It's a byproduct of a thermate reaction. Do you know what all the byproducts of a thermate reaction are? Don't look to Jones for the answer. He never lists them or their concentrations. That would be pretty important to mention, don't you think?
Jones changed his claim from thermite to thermate because he found sulfur. Sulfur is only the 3rd most common element on Earth. Lots of other potential sources.
Why would thermate be the simplist explanation? It's never used in bldg demolitions for very good reasons. Jones has been unable to get corroboration from materials engineers, metallurgists, incendiary / explosives experts, highrise structural engineers, or demolition experts. Only non-experts agree with him.
the simplest explanation for the entire body of information, including: video footage, eye-witness testomony (firemen saying that they could put out the relatively small fires), photographic evidence (photos of people standing in the holes where the jet liners crashed, where the fires where supposedly "raging"), and independent analysis of debris.
No, the evidence of the use of thermite is sorely lacking. So is evidence of explosives. How can you say the fires were "relatively small?" All the evidence contradicts you. One fireman on the 78th floor said the fires in that one location were relatively small. He wasn't talking about ALL the fires. The person stood in the impact hole AFTER the fires spread to other areas.
guys, it seems like ur just making fun of 9/11!! it's a serious thing that some people lost loved ones to!! Al Qaeda planned extensively for this attack, so they could very well have planted bombs...there was a 4 hour documentary on 9/11 a few weeks ago on tv
Do builings usually crimp and fall to the ground when un-touched by anything? Fucking scum bags in this government, killing innocent people with an inside job....shame on you America :(
Ya well, guess what asshole all you fucks voted for him so you sleep in the bed you make for yourself un-fortunatly you guys think you can make everyone else's bed too....get the fuck out of the Middle East!
i was 17 jackass i didn't vote for the fucker! Also dont think of the american people as a whole jackass you think it's my fault, for that matter most american's fault that were there well no dumbass. What if i said you dumbasses whereever the hell you live was a bunch of dumb fucks?!
It would'nt matter, where I come from we don't put money, oil and political gain before human lives, especially our own people. The average American has to stop buying into gov't bullshit and not be going into the military.
To demolish WTC 7 this way, you'd need weeks of installement of explosives and timers. It could never have done in one afternoon. Never. I know this from first hand, as a relative of mine in Europe is a professional demolisher, and he told me all the ins & outs.
I am not saying WHO did this, because I do not know for sure. I am only saying what it takes. For example to determine pre-cuts, drill holes, balance & pressure calculation, amount and types of explosives, wiring, detonation delays & sequences, just to name a few out of hundreds of things.
WTC 1&2 and building 7 were old dilapidated buildings that needed replacing. There were less and less companys using them, and that`s a fact. "Demolish" WTC 1&2 B7, get the insurance company to replace them, then Mr. Silverstein has a nice new building, WTC 1&2 are rebuilt, and Mr. Bush has his excuse to go to war.
Wow, this myth has been shot down so many times I can't believe it's still around. Nah, the WTCs were money-makers. They had high occupancy rates. Silverstein beat out stiff competition to buy them. As for insurance payouts, the max Silverstein can get is $4.6 billion and insurance companies are fighting it. All the payouts have gone (and will go) to rebuilding, which has a pricetag of $9 billion.
As for WHO did this, they must have had unrestricted access at each floor, all the necessary materials, plus all the architectural drawings, plus many hundreds of undisturbed man-hours to drill with pneumatic equipment, etc etc.
How the fuck was it damaged? A small nick on its one corner will bring it down? But the inertia from two fully laden 767's wouldn't directly bring down the towers?
At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. --Fred Marsilla, FDNY
Firefighters didn't say they heard "explosives." They said they heard "explosions." Lots of things cause explosions. FDNY did indeed determine WTC 7 was seriously damaged and likely to collapse. Jones doesn't claim explosives were used. He hypothesized that thermate was used. The 911 Commision didn't look at WTC 5 or 6 either. They're not engineers and examining the collapses was not in their charge. That job was given to NIST.
when I say minimal I mean in comparison to the damage sustained by the first two buildings. It seems FDNY knew that this building was going to come down despite the fact that a building coming down from fire damage was unprecedented (excepting wtc's 1 and 2.) Also, I'd like your take on physicist Steven Jones' contention that the buildings were brought down by explosives and more importantly WHY DID THE 9/11 COMMISSION LEAVE OUT ANY MENTION OF BUILDING 7'S COLLAPSE IN THEIR FINAL REPORT?
Well if you discount the testimony of dozens of firefighters who heard explosives going off and ignore the fact that never in the history of time had a building been brought down by fire (except for wtc 1 and 2 earlier that day) and try to explain silverstein's self-incriminating comments by saying he meant something else than what he actually said i guess i would believe you.
sorry if this got posted twice but PoetryHound how can one explain Larry Silverstein's comment that "we pulled building 7" along with the fact that he made hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance claims after the attacks. That goes along with the fact that somehow a 47 storey building that had minimal fire damage to it somehow collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed 8 hours after the first two buildings fell. How could explosives not be involved?
He did not say "we pulled building 7." He said "they made the decision to pull." Who is "they?" The FDNY? Was the FDNY in on a plot to blow up WTC 7? Silverstein didn't make money on 911. If his insurance companies had even a hint that it was a scam, they wouldn't have paid him a penny. Insurance companies do not pay profits. They pay compensation for losses and replacement costs. All the payouts have gone into rebuilding.
Who says the damage to WTC 7 was "minimal?" According to the FDNY it wasn't minimal. Based on an assessment of the poor condition of the buidling, they anticipated its collapse and neither saw nor heard demo charges at the time of collapse.
PoetryHound how can one explain Larry Silverstein's comment that "we pulled building 7" along with the fact that he made hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance claims after the attacks. That goes along with the fact that somehow a 47 storey building that had minimal fire damage to it somehow collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed 8 hours after the first two buildings fell. How could explosives not be involved?
i have read the nist's reports, and theres a dubious ammount of assumptions and improbable circumstances involved. ive also read a few dubunking articles and have found them to be flimsy and full of assumptions as well. we know now that our leaders are criminals. that fact coupled with hard science and a little logic brings the disturbing truth to light. it makes clear sense to me and many others.
Sometimes people dismiss things without having read them, so I'm curious what your specific concerns are with the NIST Interim Report and the Garcia article. What specifically did you find "flimsy" & what assumptions were unreasonable? Curious.
besides all the "might have" and "could have", or "this may imply", the basic thesis that fire damage initiated structural failure up and across the building instantaneously is far fetched. this has never happened before. yet instead of investigating the more likely scenerio of a few well-placed charges, they go out of their way to try and make the official numbers add up. i dont blame them. any professional who has suggested demolition has have been smeared and had their careers destroyed.
If you have a problem with "might haves," "may haves," and "most likelies," you will be uncomfortable in the world of science. That's the way science is. Very rarely do scientists say, "This is definitely the way things happened." Why is it so difficult to understand the sequential loss of load-bearing capacity among a number columns? The problem with the "few well-placed charges" theory is that it would take a lot more than a few & there's no evidence of explosives being used.
damn man, we've been arguing about this for what, like two weeks now. i do not believe the official story, i never will. you're quite comfortable with it. im always going to have a serious problem with these attacks, and the response to our "new threat". there is no war on terror, iraq was not a danger, iran is not a danger, and sept 11th was a sham one way or another. pray giuliani doesnt make it to the white house.
Well, I can see your 911 conspiracy theory is part of your political outlook, so you think anyone who disagrees with you has an opposite political outlook and supports Bush. Wrong. I have never liked Bush. I just might be further to the left of you. But that doesn't mean I throw science to the wind. Unlike you, I take seriously what the structural engineers, civil engineers, fire engineers, metallurgists, & demo experts have to say. They do not say the towers came down from explosives.
hey now, i never accused you of supporting bush. and you began your argument with quotes from cherry-picked eye witnesses, when witnesses are known to be completely unreliable as evidence. so much for science. really though it has been a good conversation and its too bad we cant come to some kind of agreement. perhaps as we keep moving farther from that day, and when we have new leadership, we'll learn more about it. handshake and all that.
Okay, handshake. Thanks for remaining civil. Last thing: Witnesses are not known to be "completely unreliable as evidence." They can & do certainly get it wrong. But we're not talking about just 1 witness. Or 2. When you have a dozen or more FDNY saying WTC 7 was weak and we thought it would collapse, that's pretty darn reliable.
I don't buy it at all; there are too many questions, which I feel are not being addressed, and as time passes probably will never be given the attention and respect they deserve. YouYube isn't the forum for this. In any case I can't imagine why this building collapsed through fire damage; were other building not damaged by the Towers collapse? Why didn't they come down?
It's easy to be an armchair demolition expert when your only evidence is looking at a couple of videos on YouTube. What do the folks say who were there? The FDNY saw that bldg 7 was severely damaged by the collapse of Tower 1 & allowed the fires to burn for 6-7 hrs w/o abatement efforts. They ANTICIPATED its collapse and neither saw nor heard any demolition charges at the time of the collapse.
that federal building in oaklahoma city got rocked by a major explosion at its base and it crumbled where it was damaged. there was a couple of fires in building 7, and various damage to some support columns, but it doesnt look like it crumbled where there was supposed damage- it came down all at once. is that even possible? it would have had to have been built so poorly that it was on the brink of collapse since it was built. this has to be totaly insulting to the engineers who designed it.
"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 Ctr 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." --FDNY Dep. Chief Peter Hayden
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. " - Chief Frank Cruthers
"Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down." -- Lieutenant James McGlynn
a statement from a firefighter just isnt concinvincing or revealing to me. i'd like to hear an explaination from an engineer or some other kind of expert. we're talking about a well built, steel framed building. i'd need to see some really compelling evidence explaining how the fires or impact damage was able to perfectly implode that building. as of yet i've neither read or heard of such evidence.
Well, the FDNY were WTC 7 witnesses, which counts for a lot. It's true that they aren't structural engineers, but we know from them that there weren't just "a couple of fires" or just some minor damage to a few support columns. We also know they anticipated the collapse and didn't report seeing or hearing any demo charges going off at the time of collapse. Although we can rule out explosives, point well taken that we don't know the exact sequence of structural failures.
many rescue personal reported hearing and see explosions in several buildings throughout the WTC complex. there were also people running out of the towers screaming their heads off about explosions. the problem with eyewitnesses in a chaos situation is that they just dont hold up to scrutiny, regardless. the only thing you can turn to is hard science. the official investigations have based their explainations on extremely weak science and numerous unlikely assumptions. this is a real tragety.
You're right that one has to be very careful about using eyewitness and "earwitness" statements, and you have to be extremely careful about random comments about explosions in the midst of a chaotic situation. I mean, there were cops saying that there were bombs at the NY Stock Exchange & the US Capitol, all kind of things. But witness statements become more reliable when they are corroborated by lots of other witnesses, as in the case of the FDNY statements about WTC7's anticipated collapse.
It's cheap and easy to bring a highrise down these days: just cause some asymmetrical damage, light random fires on a few floors, and wait for the building to come straight down into a debris pile.
It happened *three times* on Sept. 11th, so it just has to work!
Windows breaking eh. So the towers apparently fell down and damaged wtc7 enough to eventually bring it down later on but not enough to break the windows untill it fell. Which then exploded out. Not just break. Wake up for fuck sake. Why is it so hard for some people to see that a government that has been proven to have lied about the WMD in Iraq and plenty of other times cant be behind this.
Hide you heads in the sand all you like, kiddies. Those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. I dare you to try proving otherwise. I dare you to show me another building that has symmetrically collapsed as a result of a fire. Remember, NO plane hit building 7, and there was fire damage on only ONE side of the structure. Why did it fall so perfectly? Explosives were planted, plain and simple.
its nothing. we did not bring down any buildings to cover up some wall street scam, nor did we as an excuse just to go to war.... when will this shit stop? The 1997 Mel Gibson fans need to go find a new hobby... please.
They say that the building contained informaion involved in some investigations of some Wall St. corruption. I'm sure that some high-ranking officials would have been implicated by that information.
we try to impeach presidents for getting blow jobs, way to keep the secret there. the point is, if its something that secret, implicating people, on a scale to bring down a building.... we would not even hear a rumor about it, let alone know about it. BRING DOWN FUCKING TOWERS B/C of wall street corruption.... get a clue. thats like killing all the middle aged moms who stay at home watching martha S b/c she took part in some insider trading and didnt want anyone to know about it.
Well, WTC 7 had a huge command center bunker in it. No joke. They probably pushed all the buttons for dem0'ing WTC 1 & 2 from in there...
And, even if the fire below caused collapsing of the lower floors, the penthouse wouldn't collapse first. 9II - what a f'n joke. Public Enemy was right!
haha yeah.. another name caller.. watch it carefully... you see them moving upwards.. and not only that, whats with the speed of the fall? have you seen a REAL collapse? buildings fall sideways, or wherever the beam gave. In this case ALL beams gave at the same exact time..
FAKE!!!!
bobbychamberlain1 5 months ago
@bobbychamberlain1 you're crazy man
Gianluca3392 1 month ago
Freefall demolition style.
artieD12 10 months ago
lololoolloolololloloollolololololololololoolo to you fuckers :D lololololololololoklolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololokolololololololololol olololololloolololololololololoolololololoolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololoolololololololololoolololololollolololololoolloolololoolololololololololololoolloollollllllllollollolololololollololololollololololololololololoollllolololoolololololololoooololollolololololololololo
blueboy4life 1 year ago
And let me say this to you insanedrummer, even though I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, Bush would've killed his own people if it meant continuing the established order that he brought forth. Now, I do believe that Bush & his administration allowed 9/11 to happen, which is quite obvious, & took advantage of that day, due to the suddence of the patriot acts 1 & 2 brought forth & the sudden issue of us taking part in now 2 wars.
theanarchist16 2 years ago
Actually, with the precollapse of the penthouse, the real collapse becomes around 14 seconds which is double than a free-fall collapse. So it wasn't free-fall. And the "squibs" aren't squibs. Notice on the left side of the building, during the 2nd part, & you'll see the same blackened areas before the collapse. These are open window blinds. So during the collapse, we have a good amount of window blinds on the right opening as well, which is completely logical. So it wasn't an inside job.
theanarchist16 2 years ago
exactly. I thought the free fall argument was their strongest point? This video dispels that bull shit and yet they still try and use it to their advantage. Look at the misrepresentation in the description.>>> "The first shows the rooftop penthouse collapsing a split second before the rest of the building"
Really? a split second? learn how to count it's more like 5 or 6 seconds then the rest of the building making the total time of collapse way longer than free fall.
hurley1 2 years ago
I use to be a "truther" for over 6 years. It took a lot of rethinking for me to come to reality. But it's possible.
theanarchist16 2 years ago
everyone knows it was inside job, just can't admit it : (
aihlo 1 year ago
why would bush kill his own people???
oh wait...thats something bush would do
InsaneDrummer99 2 years ago
I do believe it's very possible that building was brought down by prepositioned explosives, but I am wondering why the penthouse falling in makes it more likely that it was a controlled demolition. Why does it matter?
merrimac291 2 years ago
Textbook demolition job! 19 Muslims with boxcutters had nothing to do with the attrocities on 9/11.
Joefreiheit 3 years ago 11
The math doesn't lie. I-N-S-I-D-E J-O-B!
l3d3nn3 3 years ago 3
Well you need a stern math lesson then.
fengineer08 2 years ago
it is amazing how reluctant people are to engage with the physical evidence about this event. Rgardless of 'conspiracy theory' this or that, when you take a cold, hard, scientific look at this building and its demise, the physical evidence does not support the explanation that wtc7 fell down through some combination of damage from the twin towers and subsequent fires. This explanation is not at all consistent with the physical evidence.
bradleas 3 years ago 7
@bradleas
All they have is insults and personal attacks to anyone who dares to even look at the evidence.
batfly 1 year ago
Look at the right side of the building at 13 or 14 seconds... WOW. the ripple effect of CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
Slobbert 3 years ago 4
a missel did not hit the pentagon. ive seen a video with the hitting the pentagon.
CrackerJak4316 3 years ago
a missel did not hit the pentagon. ive seen a video with the hitting the pentagon.
CrackerJak4316 3 years ago
Join my YouTube Group of Politics!
The United America Association
daykm 3 years ago
For sure it a inside job only the USA can to things like this. In god we trust......? how e do you belief in ? GOD? ore your country?
make up your mind becaus thy will lett you make a choise sooner or later! USA the gates of evil and HEll !!!!!!!!
aapjemiddel 4 years ago
To all those who still think WT7 was NOT a demolition job how do you explain Silversteins' comments on National TV (which he never later attempted to retract) of "we pulled it"? What the hell do you think he meant by that comment? that all the FDNY guy's grabbed the building walls and physically tried to pull it down? of course not. Pulled means demolition using charges which means this was planned weeks if not months in advance, just like WTC 1 and 2. Period
Richarde1969 4 years ago
your mother never loved you.....its truly not your fault your a MORON......go outside and get a life and a hug you fkign moron
jaxnatalie 3 years ago
that is a completely dontrolle demolition if u watch when the building beins to fall it slopes in the middle...when demolitions take place they blow out a section of the middle of the building first so it falls in on itself and not around its self...
9/11 INSIDE JOB!!!
that buildind was controlled
why???
gemmasmith1990 4 years ago 2
WOW a bldg actually fell in towards a gaping massive hole that firefighters say ripped out 25% of the bldg and all the supporting trusses - and then fell hours after firefighters heard creaking sounds in the bldg and abandoned the effort to save it - damn IT MUST BE AN INSIDE JOB!!! WAKE UP YOU STUPID AMERICAN WHITE TRASH
wkwickham 3 years ago
When a building starts leaning and is on fire... and firefighters CAN'T put it out..... it will fall.
Implosions take 100's of rapid detonation charges. There is NO AUDIO of rapid explosions when the building fell. There are no flashes from explosions.
bilracer 4 years ago
BUILDING SEVEN DID NOT IMPLODE BECAUSE OF A SMaLL FIRE STARTED FROM DEBRIS FROM BUILDING BLOCKS AND BLOCKS AWAY (ARE YOU RETARDED?) AND IT WAS NOT A PLANE THAT FLEW INTO THE PENTAGON .. BECAUSE THE WINDOWS WERE INTACT ON EITHER SIDE OF THE "HOLE" WHICH MEANS A MISSLE IS MORE LIKELY .. THESE TWO THINGS ARE FOR REAL PEOPLE .. LOOK FOR YOURSELF ... LOOK AT THE NEWS FOOTAGE YOURSELVES ... SO THE QUESTION IS .....WHY THE LIES ..... just try to find the truth
hoffstepper 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hey retard, a 1000 ft bldg fell in on it and gashed out 25% of the bldg from the center and many of the supporting trusses - no 100s of demolition charges -NO CONSPIRACY - it only fell hours after firefighters heard it creaking and abandoned it - AMAZING - but I do have a soul trapped in a bottle that I'd like to sell you on ebay
wkwickham 3 years ago
There was substantial damage to one corner of the bldg effectively making that corner almost worthless as support. BUT, BUT the collapse started when the penthouse collapsed first because of a loss of collum support ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BLDG. That's what makes this suspicious as hell not to mention bombs going off in the bldg. Youtube: "Seven is Exploding" and watch it to the very end and you'll be asking q's too!
katyu16 3 years ago
Poetry hound has been active on this comment page for months.
PopsMcKracken 4 years ago
to my mind, it was clearly a controlled demolition. leaseholder larry silverstein has admitted as much... the penthouse caving in is blatant, but those squibs running up the walls appear to just be reflections from the windows as they buckle.
mumrahtheeverliving 4 years ago
The government loyalists CANNOT be convinced, partially because it is so obvious that blg 7 fell from controlled demo, and partially because they REFUSE to be convinced. These people are like someone staring at the sun and defiantly declaring that the sun's not up. The government loyalists have denied so much obvious evidence that NOTHING can get through their skulls at this point. We gotta let em be sheep.
MACpistoldotcom 4 years ago
I totally agree!
I am no engineer but I know that building 7did not get hit by a plane, and it fell the same as the other two towers did! Even when controlled demolition happens, it's hard for them to fall exactly where they want.
Whom ever planned this out was brilliant, because they got away with it! Building 7 is what makes this thing so suspicious!!
oralmonin 4 years ago
That kink in the roof always gets me. that's an internal collapse. I'm looking forward to NIST's new "blast" explanations due this year.
Corporations8MyBaby 4 years ago
It fell leaning back towards the damaged side.
Enlightend 4 years ago
it fell down towards the set exsplosives
snizzle515151 4 years ago
showing the exact chemical "fingerprint"/composition of THERMATE. Enter this code after the youtube(dot)com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
yodalantern 4 years ago
it is simply that poetry hound has not done his homework. There are owners of demolition companies on record saying this is controlled demolition, indeed, it could be nothing other and 2; He is correct that there is no evidence for thermite, however the evidence for the use of thermate is overwhelming. Not just video from prior collapse of molten metal streaming from the tower side, but also from samples taken from ground zero
yodalantern 4 years ago
it's almost as if poetryhound knows everything
how?
hithegroundrunnin 4 years ago
After 9/11 I realized that there's no need of demolition experts .Just set fire to the buildings and watch 'em fall down into ashes onto their own footprint!!!
jorgecalivalle 4 years ago
Anyone who tries that neocon bullshit about "eye witnesses can't be trusted, they didn't know what was going on" is a brainwashed zombee fuck!
Because that's a lie and a legal contradiction - eye witness testomony is very important when submitted to a court of law and taken very seriously!
wake up to the neocon contradictions and lies!
shanehoustein 4 years ago
I agree that eyewitnesses testimony can be legit, particularly if it can be corroborated. Let's look at some.
"There was very heavy fire on the upper floors of the building (WTC 1)." -- FDNY Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory
PoetryHound 4 years ago
"Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower." -- FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Minutes after the south tower collapsed at the World Trade Center, police helicopters hovered near the remaining tower to check its condition. "About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red," the pilot of one helicopter, Aviation 14, radioed at 10:07 a.m. "It's inevitable."
Seconds later, another pilot reported: "I don't think this has too much longer to go. I would evacuate all people within the area of that second building."
PoetryHound 4 years ago
"We could feel the building starting to twist above us. I called Ladder 10 three times, Ladder 10 roof to Ladder 10. There was no answer. I said we have to evacuate, the building's coming down. Again, there was no response" -- Firefighter Mike Cancel, Ladder 10
PoetryHound 4 years ago
oh come on man... don't you want to believe your own eyes?
Take a step back, open your mind to the possibility that we are all being lied to.
Osama is left handed but in the confession tape he writes with his right hand. That tape was found in Afganistan by US troops.
btw the invastion of Afganistan was already planned... the order to invade had been signed on sept 10th... the same day FEMA arrived in NY in prep for the attack.
shanehoustein 4 years ago
I was responding to your assertion that the eyewitnesses are credible. I've responded to that but you didnt acknowledge my respons and instead changed the subject to bin Laden. I don't feel like playing the endless What-about-this-What-about-that game. So let's stick with 1 thing at a time. Do you think these witnesses I cited are lying?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
fair enough. you're right, I changed the subject. Let's have a look at this one thing at a time then...
I don't think that any of those witnesses were lying. I believe that their testomony is conststent with my view: the fires were relatively small. According to the laws of thermodynamics the heat would have dispersed through out the entire structure via thermal conductivity.
It wouldn't have "moved on" (like you suggest) leaving a cold spot where it had once been blazing.
shanehoustein 4 years ago
"I believe that their testomony is conststent with my view: the fires were relatively small."
There's nothing in anything I posted where they say the fires were small. FDNY Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory even siad the fires were "heavy." The others talked about how the bldg was glowing red, moving, and twisting, & they were concerned it would collapse. That doesn't sound like a demolition.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
The Twin Towers were designed to twist and sway. They were doing so because explosions were going off in the towers, and the core was being melted by thermite.
shanehoustein 4 years ago
Many things cause explosions in a fire. What sort of demo charges go off randomly up to an hour before collapse & result in no apparent structural weakening. There's no evidence of any explosives or thermite use. That's probably why not a single demolition expert says explosives /incendiaries brought down the towers.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
For anyone interested in the scientific & factual analysis of WTC 7 & not unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense, read NIST's interim report by googling NIST appendix L.
Here's an article by a physicist and mechanical engineer:
w w w. counterpunch. org/darkfire11282006.html
Here's a large amount of info that debunks all the WTC 7 myths:
wtc7lies. googlepages. com/introduction
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Duh!
Time to wake up, brainless zombee.
The neocons don't give a fuck about you.
Use your eyes. NIST is biased. There are plenty of people who disagaree.
Did you know that explosive residue was found in the tower's rubble?
They tell you that an orange is an apple, and you believe them. That's ok... if it keeps you happy. but oneday you'll see. We all will... that the level of corruption in the US Government has reached bewildering proportions.
shanehoustein 4 years ago
"Did you know that explosive residue was found in the tower's rubble?"
Nope, none was found.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Jannette Mackinley had an apartment near ground zero whose front window was broken by the collapse of one of the buildings. For some reason, an artistic impulse, she collected some of the dust. When she learned that there was a physicist doing a study, she gave him the dust. The physicist, Dr. Steven Jones, conducted tests and found concentrations of zinc, manganese, and sulfur that were consistent with the use of an explosive, thermate, and inconsistent with any other theoretical explanation.
shanehoustein 4 years ago
You're right about everything except the last 2 lines. Thermate isn't an explosive. It's an incendiary. More importantly, Jones did not rule out other explanations for the presence of these elements, he simply didn't address them. Others have.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
ok, the concentrations of sulfur, zinc and magnesium may not have been thermite... but it is the easiest way to explain it.
It's like the model of the solar system... you can say the earth is the center, and the paths of the planets in the sky follow complex orbits around us... or you can say the sun is the center.
saying the buildings were demolished is the simpler explanation for all the observed phenomia and physical evidence.
shanehoustein 4 years ago
How do you know if thermite is the easiest way to explain the presence of sulfur, zinc and magnesium? What would be some the less easy explanations? BTW, sulfur isn't a byproduct of a thermite reaction. It's a byproduct of a thermate reaction. Do you know what all the byproducts of a thermate reaction are? Don't look to Jones for the answer. He never lists them or their concentrations. That would be pretty important to mention, don't you think?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Jones changed his claim from thermite to thermate because he found sulfur. Sulfur is only the 3rd most common element on Earth. Lots of other potential sources.
Why would thermate be the simplist explanation? It's never used in bldg demolitions for very good reasons. Jones has been unable to get corroboration from materials engineers, metallurgists, incendiary / explosives experts, highrise structural engineers, or demolition experts. Only non-experts agree with him.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
the simplest explanation for the entire body of information, including: video footage, eye-witness testomony (firemen saying that they could put out the relatively small fires), photographic evidence (photos of people standing in the holes where the jet liners crashed, where the fires where supposedly "raging"), and independent analysis of debris.
shanehoustein 4 years ago
No, the evidence of the use of thermite is sorely lacking. So is evidence of explosives. How can you say the fires were "relatively small?" All the evidence contradicts you. One fireman on the 78th floor said the fires in that one location were relatively small. He wasn't talking about ALL the fires. The person stood in the impact hole AFTER the fires spread to other areas.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
"Wake up!" says the conspiracy sheep.
Enlightend 4 years ago
guys, it seems like ur just making fun of 9/11!! it's a serious thing that some people lost loved ones to!! Al Qaeda planned extensively for this attack, so they could very well have planted bombs...there was a 4 hour documentary on 9/11 a few weeks ago on tv
softballplayernumba9 4 years ago
Do builings usually crimp and fall to the ground when un-touched by anything? Fucking scum bags in this government, killing innocent people with an inside job....shame on you America :(
micr0cosm 4 years ago
fuck you dude!! you make it sound like it was the american people. Well for your information it wasn't the people it was the government and bush
crystalvirus2 4 years ago
Ya well, guess what asshole all you fucks voted for him so you sleep in the bed you make for yourself un-fortunatly you guys think you can make everyone else's bed too....get the fuck out of the Middle East!
micr0cosm 4 years ago
i was 17 jackass i didn't vote for the fucker! Also dont think of the american people as a whole jackass you think it's my fault, for that matter most american's fault that were there well no dumbass. What if i said you dumbasses whereever the hell you live was a bunch of dumb fucks?!
crystalvirus2 4 years ago
It would'nt matter, where I come from we don't put money, oil and political gain before human lives, especially our own people. The average American has to stop buying into gov't bullshit and not be going into the military.
micr0cosm 4 years ago
LOL @ the guys comment about bin laden having a degree in demos and lets go nuke iran
LOLOLOL
inside job
Garbonzo07 4 years ago
The collapse started at 0:02. notice that it kept on standing and dint collapse in 6.5 seconds.
WTCTribute 4 years ago
To demolish WTC 7 this way, you'd need weeks of installement of explosives and timers. It could never have done in one afternoon. Never. I know this from first hand, as a relative of mine in Europe is a professional demolisher, and he told me all the ins & outs.
the50s60s70s 4 years ago
So are you saying Al Qaeda did NOT do this?
sarwar26 4 years ago
I am not saying WHO did this, because I do not know for sure. I am only saying what it takes. For example to determine pre-cuts, drill holes, balance & pressure calculation, amount and types of explosives, wiring, detonation delays & sequences, just to name a few out of hundreds of things.
the50s60s70s 4 years ago
So Bin Laden were told is a BILLIONAIRE businessman who lives in a cave and has a degree in remote demolition.
OK i buy that. Lets go to and nuke Iran.
sarwar26 4 years ago
Whether terrorism or inside job, God bless you Fred and all your colleagues, especially the fallen!
wehavejoy 4 years ago
WTC 1&2 and building 7 were old dilapidated buildings that needed replacing. There were less and less companys using them, and that`s a fact. "Demolish" WTC 1&2 B7, get the insurance company to replace them, then Mr. Silverstein has a nice new building, WTC 1&2 are rebuilt, and Mr. Bush has his excuse to go to war.
wehavejoy 4 years ago
Wow, this myth has been shot down so many times I can't believe it's still around. Nah, the WTCs were money-makers. They had high occupancy rates. Silverstein beat out stiff competition to buy them. As for insurance payouts, the max Silverstein can get is $4.6 billion and insurance companies are fighting it. All the payouts have gone (and will go) to rebuilding, which has a pricetag of $9 billion.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Straight to the point.
sarwar26 4 years ago
As for WHO did this, they must have had unrestricted access at each floor, all the necessary materials, plus all the architectural drawings, plus many hundreds of undisturbed man-hours to drill with pneumatic equipment, etc etc.
the50s60s70s 4 years ago
How the fuck was it damaged? A small nick on its one corner will bring it down? But the inertia from two fully laden 767's wouldn't directly bring down the towers?
ssbluedevil 4 years ago
At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. --Fred Marsilla, FDNY
PoetryHound 4 years ago
I agree it was controlled demolition as it went straight down and made a nice little pile, just like controlled demolition,
RuleBrittania453 5 years ago
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
saluki420 5 years ago
Firefighters didn't say they heard "explosives." They said they heard "explosions." Lots of things cause explosions. FDNY did indeed determine WTC 7 was seriously damaged and likely to collapse. Jones doesn't claim explosives were used. He hypothesized that thermate was used. The 911 Commision didn't look at WTC 5 or 6 either. They're not engineers and examining the collapses was not in their charge. That job was given to NIST.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
when I say minimal I mean in comparison to the damage sustained by the first two buildings. It seems FDNY knew that this building was going to come down despite the fact that a building coming down from fire damage was unprecedented (excepting wtc's 1 and 2.) Also, I'd like your take on physicist Steven Jones' contention that the buildings were brought down by explosives and more importantly WHY DID THE 9/11 COMMISSION LEAVE OUT ANY MENTION OF BUILDING 7'S COLLAPSE IN THEIR FINAL REPORT?
byron84 5 years ago
Well if you discount the testimony of dozens of firefighters who heard explosives going off and ignore the fact that never in the history of time had a building been brought down by fire (except for wtc 1 and 2 earlier that day) and try to explain silverstein's self-incriminating comments by saying he meant something else than what he actually said i guess i would believe you.
byron84 5 years ago
can someone please make sense of this in 50 words or less
MrMexicant 5 years ago
sorry if this got posted twice but PoetryHound how can one explain Larry Silverstein's comment that "we pulled building 7" along with the fact that he made hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance claims after the attacks. That goes along with the fact that somehow a 47 storey building that had minimal fire damage to it somehow collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed 8 hours after the first two buildings fell. How could explosives not be involved?
byron84 5 years ago
He did not say "we pulled building 7." He said "they made the decision to pull." Who is "they?" The FDNY? Was the FDNY in on a plot to blow up WTC 7? Silverstein didn't make money on 911. If his insurance companies had even a hint that it was a scam, they wouldn't have paid him a penny. Insurance companies do not pay profits. They pay compensation for losses and replacement costs. All the payouts have gone into rebuilding.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
Who says the damage to WTC 7 was "minimal?" According to the FDNY it wasn't minimal. Based on an assessment of the poor condition of the buidling, they anticipated its collapse and neither saw nor heard demo charges at the time of collapse.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
PoetryHound how can one explain Larry Silverstein's comment that "we pulled building 7" along with the fact that he made hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance claims after the attacks. That goes along with the fact that somehow a 47 storey building that had minimal fire damage to it somehow collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed 8 hours after the first two buildings fell. How could explosives not be involved?
byron84 5 years ago
proboscislounge, you can get NIST's interim report on WTC 7 by googling NIST Appendix L
Here's an article by a physicist and mechanical engineer:
w w w*counterpunch*org (slash) darkfire11282006.html
Here's a paper that debunks all the WTC 7 myths:
w w w*911myths*com (slash) WTC7_Lies.doc
PoetryHound 5 years ago
i have read the nist's reports, and theres a dubious ammount of assumptions and improbable circumstances involved. ive also read a few dubunking articles and have found them to be flimsy and full of assumptions as well. we know now that our leaders are criminals. that fact coupled with hard science and a little logic brings the disturbing truth to light. it makes clear sense to me and many others.
proboscislounge 5 years ago
Sometimes people dismiss things without having read them, so I'm curious what your specific concerns are with the NIST Interim Report and the Garcia article. What specifically did you find "flimsy" & what assumptions were unreasonable? Curious.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
besides all the "might have" and "could have", or "this may imply", the basic thesis that fire damage initiated structural failure up and across the building instantaneously is far fetched. this has never happened before. yet instead of investigating the more likely scenerio of a few well-placed charges, they go out of their way to try and make the official numbers add up. i dont blame them. any professional who has suggested demolition has have been smeared and had their careers destroyed.
proboscislounge 5 years ago
If you have a problem with "might haves," "may haves," and "most likelies," you will be uncomfortable in the world of science. That's the way science is. Very rarely do scientists say, "This is definitely the way things happened." Why is it so difficult to understand the sequential loss of load-bearing capacity among a number columns? The problem with the "few well-placed charges" theory is that it would take a lot more than a few & there's no evidence of explosives being used.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
damn man, we've been arguing about this for what, like two weeks now. i do not believe the official story, i never will. you're quite comfortable with it. im always going to have a serious problem with these attacks, and the response to our "new threat". there is no war on terror, iraq was not a danger, iran is not a danger, and sept 11th was a sham one way or another. pray giuliani doesnt make it to the white house.
proboscislounge 5 years ago
Well, I can see your 911 conspiracy theory is part of your political outlook, so you think anyone who disagrees with you has an opposite political outlook and supports Bush. Wrong. I have never liked Bush. I just might be further to the left of you. But that doesn't mean I throw science to the wind. Unlike you, I take seriously what the structural engineers, civil engineers, fire engineers, metallurgists, & demo experts have to say. They do not say the towers came down from explosives.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
hey now, i never accused you of supporting bush. and you began your argument with quotes from cherry-picked eye witnesses, when witnesses are known to be completely unreliable as evidence. so much for science. really though it has been a good conversation and its too bad we cant come to some kind of agreement. perhaps as we keep moving farther from that day, and when we have new leadership, we'll learn more about it. handshake and all that.
proboscislounge 5 years ago
Okay, handshake. Thanks for remaining civil. Last thing: Witnesses are not known to be "completely unreliable as evidence." They can & do certainly get it wrong. But we're not talking about just 1 witness. Or 2. When you have a dozen or more FDNY saying WTC 7 was weak and we thought it would collapse, that's pretty darn reliable.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
I don't buy it at all; there are too many questions, which I feel are not being addressed, and as time passes probably will never be given the attention and respect they deserve. YouYube isn't the forum for this. In any case I can't imagine why this building collapsed through fire damage; were other building not damaged by the Towers collapse? Why didn't they come down?
alexhetherington 5 years ago
It's easy to be an armchair demolition expert when your only evidence is looking at a couple of videos on YouTube. What do the folks say who were there? The FDNY saw that bldg 7 was severely damaged by the collapse of Tower 1 & allowed the fires to burn for 6-7 hrs w/o abatement efforts. They ANTICIPATED its collapse and neither saw nor heard any demolition charges at the time of the collapse.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
that federal building in oaklahoma city got rocked by a major explosion at its base and it crumbled where it was damaged. there was a couple of fires in building 7, and various damage to some support columns, but it doesnt look like it crumbled where there was supposed damage- it came down all at once. is that even possible? it would have had to have been built so poorly that it was on the brink of collapse since it was built. this has to be totaly insulting to the engineers who designed it.
proboscislounge 5 years ago
"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 Ctr 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." --FDNY Dep. Chief Peter Hayden
PoetryHound 5 years ago
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. " - Chief Frank Cruthers
PoetryHound 5 years ago
"Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down." -- Lieutenant James McGlynn
PoetryHound 5 years ago
a statement from a firefighter just isnt concinvincing or revealing to me. i'd like to hear an explaination from an engineer or some other kind of expert. we're talking about a well built, steel framed building. i'd need to see some really compelling evidence explaining how the fires or impact damage was able to perfectly implode that building. as of yet i've neither read or heard of such evidence.
proboscislounge 5 years ago
Well, the FDNY were WTC 7 witnesses, which counts for a lot. It's true that they aren't structural engineers, but we know from them that there weren't just "a couple of fires" or just some minor damage to a few support columns. We also know they anticipated the collapse and didn't report seeing or hearing any demo charges going off at the time of collapse. Although we can rule out explosives, point well taken that we don't know the exact sequence of structural failures.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
many rescue personal reported hearing and see explosions in several buildings throughout the WTC complex. there were also people running out of the towers screaming their heads off about explosions. the problem with eyewitnesses in a chaos situation is that they just dont hold up to scrutiny, regardless. the only thing you can turn to is hard science. the official investigations have based their explainations on extremely weak science and numerous unlikely assumptions. this is a real tragety.
proboscislounge 5 years ago
You're right that one has to be very careful about using eyewitness and "earwitness" statements, and you have to be extremely careful about random comments about explosions in the midst of a chaotic situation. I mean, there were cops saying that there were bombs at the NY Stock Exchange & the US Capitol, all kind of things. But witness statements become more reliable when they are corroborated by lots of other witnesses, as in the case of the FDNY statements about WTC7's anticipated collapse.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
It's cheap and easy to bring a highrise down these days: just cause some asymmetrical damage, light random fires on a few floors, and wait for the building to come straight down into a debris pile.
It happened *three times* on Sept. 11th, so it just has to work!
Finnquirer 5 years ago
Windows breaking eh. So the towers apparently fell down and damaged wtc7 enough to eventually bring it down later on but not enough to break the windows untill it fell. Which then exploded out. Not just break. Wake up for fuck sake. Why is it so hard for some people to see that a government that has been proven to have lied about the WMD in Iraq and plenty of other times cant be behind this.
blueroyle 5 years ago
damn... this really likes like a controlled explosion...
wtf is going on??? I want to know the truth... I mean THE TRUTH
BazookaRafar 5 years ago
i guess the truth is so unbelievable, people just try to ignore it
krullogd 5 years ago
Hide you heads in the sand all you like, kiddies. Those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. I dare you to try proving otherwise. I dare you to show me another building that has symmetrically collapsed as a result of a fire. Remember, NO plane hit building 7, and there was fire damage on only ONE side of the structure. Why did it fall so perfectly? Explosives were planted, plain and simple.
SONOFABITCH 5 years ago
its nothing. we did not bring down any buildings to cover up some wall street scam, nor did we as an excuse just to go to war.... when will this shit stop? The 1997 Mel Gibson fans need to go find a new hobby... please.
Snowbrdr020 5 years ago
Ahh stupid motherfuckers with no brain.
seraph101 5 years ago
Ah suburban kids with too much time on their hands.
treleung 5 years ago
the government is always covering stuff up, maybe that penthouse had secret information in it.
Justmatt1 5 years ago
They say that the building contained informaion involved in some investigations of some Wall St. corruption. I'm sure that some high-ranking officials would have been implicated by that information.
egnilk66 5 years ago
we try to impeach presidents for getting blow jobs, way to keep the secret there. the point is, if its something that secret, implicating people, on a scale to bring down a building.... we would not even hear a rumor about it, let alone know about it. BRING DOWN FUCKING TOWERS B/C of wall street corruption.... get a clue. thats like killing all the middle aged moms who stay at home watching martha S b/c she took part in some insider trading and didnt want anyone to know about it.
Snowbrdr020 5 years ago
That's only the icing on the cake....not the real reason it all happened. It gave Bush our backing to go into Iraq and Afghanistan....
egnilk66 5 years ago
Well, WTC 7 had a huge command center bunker in it. No joke. They probably pushed all the buttons for dem0'ing WTC 1 & 2 from in there...
And, even if the fire below caused collapsing of the lower floors, the penthouse wouldn't collapse first. 9II - what a f'n joke. Public Enemy was right!
deisys 5 years ago
i was kidnapped by jimmy hoffa on a spaceship. elvis was the one who gave me the anal probe. JFK is not really dead.... he was the pilot.
Snowbrdr020 5 years ago
lolo dude nice
garandx 5 years ago
haha yeah.. another name caller.. watch it carefully... you see them moving upwards.. and not only that, whats with the speed of the fall? have you seen a REAL collapse? buildings fall sideways, or wherever the beam gave. In this case ALL beams gave at the same exact time..
brainphreak 5 years ago
So the building falls down but the windows break one by one in a clean row upwards? Idiot.
seraph101 5 years ago
those are windows breaking you idiot
philritter21 5 years ago
retard.
IIDX 5 years ago