"Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon."

[creativenameisnotava]

Thinking logically entails looking at the many false flag attacks carried out by the US and Israel that they have admitted or planned. There is extensive documentation on all of these that have been released by the FOIA. You wouldn't trust someone who stole from you again and again with a hundred dollar bill would you? And yes, the US has no qualms about killing it's own. Look at the Gulf of Tonkin, Northwoods etc

[MrZombiekiller23]

not a conspiracy,demolished dummys

[000EatMan000]

so is the implication that you can just casually demo buildings in the middle of highly visible public business sectors without any seeing you (and at a moments notice no less)?

[ArcanineKing]

@000EatMan000 Try figuring that one out by thinking logically.

How do you do that? Usually, after Midnight, the city is dead sleep and it's not really 'busy'. Clue one.

Security was reduced in the weeks before 9/11. Clue two.

There was an elevator renovation for the two towers during those weeks for ALL elevator shafts, mostly around the core center. Clue three.

Bomb sniffing dogs were removed during this renovation. Clue four.

I have more clues if you want to figure out the puzzle. :)

[000EatMan000]

@ArcanineKing 1)not true at all AND show me the memo that tells nypd to ignore the trucks full of bombs parked by wtc for days in a row btw or one eyewitness

2) 4) security was actually HIGHER than usual in the weeks prior because of bomb threats - the "removal" was actually just going back to normal security. one of the bomb sniffing dogs actually died on 9/11 so nice try there

3) when is there not maintenance in a decades old skyscraper?

when are you guys going to start thinking logically?

[DrmFrk80127]

@ArcanineKing Gimme proof of this bullshit you're trying to feed everybody.

[BrucieWayne]

dont you remember 9/11 being caused by an airplane jacked

firefighters aren't stupid if they see an airplane coming towards a building they are going to radio people to come there just in case

[ArcanineKing]

The building was extensively renovated in 1989 to accommodate the needs of Salomon Brothers. Most of three existing floors were removed as tenants continued to occupy other floors, and more than 350 tons (U.S.) of steel were added to construct three double-height trading floors. Nine diesel generators were installed on the 5th floor as part of a backup power station.

So... the diesel generators were all on one floor.

Hmm... and added 350 tons more of steel during this renovation.

[ArcanineKing]

So... you're saying the collapse was because of one floor that had uncontrollable fires from diesel engines? Especially since the building's had added steel construction, not to mention, that this increases the chances for the building to resist freefall. NIST reported 5.4 seconds of freefall, so...

...where did all that steel go? It turned to melting cheese?

[usamericanz]

Who said ANYTHING about diesel engines? Not me. Who said anything about melted steel? Not me. And please cite for me where it says in the NIST report that Building 7 had "5.4 seconds of freefall." Anyone who watches the CBS news vid of the collapse, showing how it started with the mechanical penthouse at the top and progressed down, can easily see the collapse takes close to 14 seconds. That ain't freefall.

[usamericanz]

I don't recall disputing where the diesel engines were located, or that the building had been renovated. But thanks anyway.

[ArcanineKing]

As for your question, I already answered:

There's no "intensive" damage. The only damage was outside and it was simply a gash on the front of the building. Care to explain to me how the corner fell then, since NIST never explained that?

NIST didn't include 14 seconds of collapse. 5.4 seconds collapse by NIST. Does that mean... wait, are you saying NIST is wrong? :O Holy cow, you are! Then you are contradicting NIST's official reports! That was a bad debunking move, bad! But thanks for that.

[usamericanz]

OK, I just read the section of the NIST report where they calculated the collapse time of 5.4 seconds, and as is usually the case with toofers, I noticed immediately that you failed to mention something pretty important...NIST calculate the collapse time based on when the ROOFLINE hit the ground. The collapse started earlier, though, as we all can plainly see on the video, with the penthouse mechanical room. So, no, sorry, I don't think I "debunked" NIST. Nice try, though.

[usamericanz]

Oh, and you still haven't explained to me why a building with a vertical gash that extends approx 10 stories, on fire, would need to have additional damage added via photoshop...are you giving up on that particular troofer myth?

[usamericanz]

clip of ABC news video showing HUGE gash in WTC 7:

watch?v=5GEEzHn4tqo

Given a gash that sliced through 20 or so floors of WTC 7, why the hell would NIST or anyone else need to "add" damage with a faked photo?  They wouldn't, of course.

[ArcanineKing]

mujca. com/First%20Pic. jpg

You mean the one where they included the damaged corner?

Here's another image.

Last floors don't show damage, at the bottom, on NIST it does.

Also, that 'gash' sliced through the north side of the building, but it didn't even phase the core structure, not even did it damage most of the columns keeping the building straight.

But, WTC7 fell with all cores giving way. Care to tell me how did the 81 columns give way if only a dozen did? and from a few floor fires?

[usamericanz]

You never answered my question - given the CATASTROPHIC damage from debris and fire, why would anyone NEED to 'add' more damage? As for the collapse, the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and those fires burned out of control. After many hours, the heat from these fires caused thermal expansion of the beams on the lower floors, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors...eventually, support girders failed causing the collapse.

[ArcanineKing]

What CATASTROPHIC damage?

All we saw was a gash of, as you said, 20 floors on the front of the building, going no longer than 10-15 feet on each floor. As to how high the temperatures were on these fires?

If thermal expansion of the beams did indeed occur, then how did the Windsor burn entirely, from floor to floor, for over 8 hours and still stand? The damage wasn't even THAT catastrophic. The corner is not even damaged, NIST was exaggerating it. Several images show different.

[usamericanz]

again, you're not answering the question - given the fires and the clearly obvious damage to the building, as evident from numerous photos and videos, WHY,let me repeat, WHY would NIST or anyone else NEED to add 'photoshopped' damage to the photo of the SW corner? Please explain.

[usamericanz]

WTC 7 collapsed due to catastrophic damage and raging fires that burned inside on almost every floor for hours. The collapse was progressive, starting with the mechanical penthouse at the top, and the fall took about 14 seconds - far slower than the 'freefall' speed so often mentioned by kooky conspiracy theorists. There has been ZERO evidence of bombs, demolition charges, thermite/thermate or nano-thermite/thermate. None...nothing. It collapsed due to damage and fire. Period.

[ArcanineKing]

You forgot the pockets of heat radiating from WTC7's rubble 6 days after the collapse of all towers. 1200F heat temperatures were recorded in a building that didn't have more than 800F.

Also, if the damage is so intense, how come NIST faked the corner damage? We can obviously see a difference between two images, the one from NIST, and from a photographer which showed most of the floors intact on that corner, compared to NIST's. 81 columns falling simultaneously to cause a symmetric collapse? :P

[usamericanz]

Arcanine, please cite for me any credible proof you might have that the heat signatures from the collapse sites were hotter than expected. Posts from 9/11 kook site forums don't count as "proof." NIST faked nothing; more troofer nonsense. The corner you're talking about on the NIST photo is partially obscured by smoke and haze, as is the comparison photo the troofers have tried to use to prove it was "faked." There was no reason to fake...the gash was enough damage to cause the collapse.

[ArcanineKing]

NASA thermal imagery from the USGS?

img76. imageshack. us/img76/3638/hotspotscomposit­rm5. jpg

NIST claims fire caused the building to collapse. The 'gash' has no structural instability at all, but I'm guessing you know more about it. Do you have any credentials? :P

Also,

calgary911truth. org/photos/uncategorized/2007/­05/17/combosmall_2. jpg

Differences between NIST's damage report image and Zafar's photograph.

Where is that damaged chunk of corner?

I don't see it on Zafar's image.

[usamericanz]

This is the exact same "comparison" photo, which still offers ZERO proof of anything being faked or photoshopped. Reference points A and B match in both photos. The area below C on the NIST photo has smoke and haze obscuring a clear view of the corner. Furthermore, do we know what time each of these photos were taken? If the NIST photo does in fact show the corner missing, maybe it collapsed AFTER the Zafar photo was taken.

[usamericanz]

At 5 days post 9/11, when these images were taken, thousands of rescuers were onsite using industrial strength cutting torches and other heat-generating equipment 24 hours a day, trying to cut away the debris while searching for survivors. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the heat signature was "supposed" to be - do you know?

[usamericanz]

Huge vertical gash in WTC 7 easily seen from still photo taken from ABC news video:

img84(dot)imageshack(dot)us/im­g84/3236/wtc7gash(dot)jpg

Huge gash+raging fires=collapse.

[EarthsGravitySucks]

quote right off of NIST's own web site.

"As part of the NCST Act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to serve as expert witnesses."

signed into law on Oct. 1, 2002, by President Bush

as in: anything NIST concludes is inadmissible in a court of law and makes it as good as hearsay. So much for NIST's credentials.