• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aaaah, there we go! Out of 15 Post Pergatory! :)

Anyway, here's some photos I took of a *genuine* controlled demolition and its prep work - the implosion of Landmark Tower in downtown Fort Worth, TX, the second-tallest building imploded ever. As I mentioned, I live just a couple of blocks away from this site, so I had a great opportunity to observe the work being done to the building in preparation for its date with the ground. These photos are hosted on my own web server.

The prep work took *months* of time, and involved the removal of the building's base, removal of several steel columns in its frame, the gutting of the interior, etc. etc. etc. These two photos show the crew from Midwest Wrecking hard at work on the exposed base of the tower's structure. It's not the work of a few "guys in hard hats," but a small army of them with heavy equipment and months of time, not to mention an exposed structure to play with.

landmark1small.jpg


landmark2small.jpg


Nobody would notice that sort of work in an office, right? Not to mention how it'd be, I'd say, impossible to do all this in an active office building with nobody noticing, or even do it at all - how long would all this take without being able to get at the whole frame like that? The mind boggles.

This shot was taken just a day or two before implosion:

landmark3small.jpg


As you can see, the building has been draped with protective netting, and further netting is going on the base. A lot of cables were strung around the columns on the base as well, to help control the collapse of the columns after the charges blow. The mount of dirt was a wall built around the trench dug around the building - Landmark Tower was surrounded by several restored historic buildings, and the drop had to be precise to minimize the chances of damage to the other buildings (more on that later). I believe (trying to remember exactly when this photo was taken) you can see some of the many, many charges on the columns in the foreground, and this is after they removed a lot of columns to weaken the building. I think you can even see how much wider some of the column spacing looks, thanks to the removal of so many columns. Speaking of which...

landmark4small.jpg


After they removed a lot of columns, they had to keep the building stable while charges were placed and the last bits of demo work were carried out. This is just one of several large wood block columns erected to stabilize the tower as work finished.

All this work brought us to this:

landmark5small.jpg


landmark6small.jpg


Note: downtown Fort Worth is actually really pretty. It was a dark, dreary, rainy day when the implosion occurred, so the photos I took then aren't all that attractive. I was on the 13th floor of the Burnett Plaza office tower to get the implosion shots.

2nd Note: I saw a thread here where somebody posted footage of the Landmark implosion, and somebody commented on the lean the building executed before coming down. That was intentional. The implosion was designed to lean Landmark north and west a bit before dropping it straight down into the trench dug around it. The plan worked perfectly, as it dropped really nicely into the trench and the only notable damage to the historic buildings around it was a handful of broken windows. You can really see the lean in that first shot!

So, there you go. I seriously doubt any work of this nature could be carried out in an occupied, active office building, let alone having it done and *nobody remembering it or noticing.*
 
Last edited:
So, there you go. I seriously doubt any work of this nature could be carried out in an occupied, active office building, let alone having it done and *nobody remembering it or noticing.*

It's funny how troofers downplay the amount of explosives it would take to bring down the WTC towers, yet at the same time believe they were invulnerable to fire and/or high-energy collisions.
 
So, there you go. I seriously doubt any work of this nature could be carried out in an occupied, active office building, let alone having it done and *nobody remembering it or noticing.*

Nice pictures, very well done.

As has been pointed out, the act of demolishing a building is a very involved process. You don't just stick a couple blocks of C4 on it and hit a button.

But wait, you've failed to disprove that the evil Jooz used their Joo magik to plant magical explosives to bring down the towers from the top down, and also the WTC7 for some reason, possibly without demolishing the towers for some reason I don't know I'm just asking questions.
 
It's funny how troofers downplay the amount of explosives it would take to bring down the WTC towers, yet at the same time believe they were invulnerable to fire and/or high-energy collisions.

No kidding!

And remember, this was a 30-story skyscraper, 2nd-tallest imploded building ever, and it took massive amounts of work and a large number of charges. The amount of work required to bring down something like the WTC, significantly larger, would be frightening I bet.
 
No kidding!

And remember, this was a 30-story skyscraper, 2nd-tallest imploded building ever, and it took massive amounts of work and a large number of charges. The amount of work required to bring down something like the WTC, significantly larger, would be frightening I bet.

Unless you choose to do it in a totally uncontrolled, chaotic way by flying a bloody great fuel laden passenger aircraft into it and then let the subsequent fires burn unchecked for nearly an hour.

Oh and BTW....

Welcome to the forum! :)
 
Because there is a movie in which people say 'it is about to blow up', there are other movies in which 100s of people are watching in that direction before it collapsed, do you think they were standing 7 hours with their face in that direction ?

The police were refering to Stuyvesant High School, not WTC7.
 
Unless you choose to do it in a totally uncontrolled, chaotic way by flying a bloody great fuel laden passenger aircraft into it and then let the subsequent fires burn unchecked for nearly an hour.

Or have parts of a bloody tall building fall on it and have subsequent fires burn for 7 hours.


I'll also add;
Welcome to the forum Atomic Glee!
 
Seconded. Downtown Fort Worth is a great place. It's pretty much an ideal city in my opinion.
Too D**n many foks in there for me.
I only go ther when we got visitors who insist. Otherwise To the Imax or S. on University to the zoo is as close as I get.
 
einsteen,

can you please explain why the CD of WTC7 was so quiet?

Oh and explain to me why the conspirators blew up WTC7 at 5:20 pm. Why not blow it up at 10:35 after the second tower came down? All the dust everywhere...

Why blow it up 7 hours later? Just so that it would stand out?
 
Last edited:
einsteen,

can you please explain why the CD of WTC7 was so quiet?

Oh and explain to me why the conspirators blew up WTC7 at 5:20 pm. Why not blow it up at 10:35 after the second tower came down? All the dust everywhere...

Why blow it up 7 hours later? Just so that it would stand out?

I might add that if they blew it shortly after WTC 1 went down they could also have had it fall to the south towards WTC 1 and cause less damage to surrounding buildings than it did when it actually did collapse 7 hours later.

Now einsteen or others will likely bring out that old saw that the collapse of WTC 7 did not kill anyone and that had WTC 7 collapsed shortly after WTC 1 then many more would have been killed. In posts above it was shown that the personell from the OEM office were still evacuating when WTC 1 fell and so they'd have been killed if #7 went with it. However, the supposed perpetrators of this supposed crime had absolutly no compunction about killing people. 3,000 did die! That the personel in #7 might have been OEM , or other gov't agency people would mean nothing. These same perpetrators killed people at the Pentagon, they killed police officers, they killed firefighters, no one's life meant anything to them and to argue otherwise is to truly fictionalize matters.
 
Unless you choose to do it in a totally uncontrolled, chaotic way by flying a bloody great fuel laden passenger aircraft into it and then let the subsequent fires burn unchecked for nearly an hour.

Right. I figured that went without saying, but when dealing with woo I guess it's a good idea to make things clear. :)
 
einsteen,

can you please explain why the CD of WTC7 was so quiet?

No kidding. To use the Landmark implosion as an example again, well, just listen to the amount of charges that can be (very clearly) heard, and seen.

(And believe me, they could be *felt* too. I was down the street in a 40-story office tower and I felt the blasts.)

 
(CT Mode on)

But...but....but.... you DO realise that the Landmark implosion (if indeed there is such a thing) was staged by the government to produce the very evidence you official theory conspiracists are now depending on? I mean, it's SO obvious!!

In fact every controlled demolition in the last 50 years has been an overly elaborate staged event leading to this moment when they can claim that the WTC towers did not look like the previous staged CD events.

So there!!

(CT mode off)

Damn it's too easy to think like a woowoo.
 
This seems to be one of the favourite deflections of people like you. What exactly did you expect them to do with the steel? Spread it all over the streets of downtown NY and leave it there for a couple years?
Dumb question

By your statement you attempt to suggest that the investigators did not have adequate access to the evidence. This is simply not the case. I challenge you to find one 9/11 investigator who is unsatisfied with the access they had to evidence. If your claims are correct, there should have been dozens of them complaining to the media.
Obviously you didn't bother to click on the link provided.
I was quoting a government report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

pg 5

"Lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure"

pg 27

"Nist possesses 236 structural elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings."

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7"

This is an outright lie. The first reports of steel corrosion were in regard to steel taken from WTC7. There was a lot of worry at the time over whether other steel-frame buildings might be suffering from similar corrosive effects, and whether this could result in future collapses elsewhere. I'd give you a link to back this up, however, as a new member I can't post links. Google "wtc7 steel corrosion" and try out some of the links.
Before calling someone a liar you should take a minute and view the evidencd provided.
 
Christopher7 said:
Dumb question
Why?

Christopher7 said:
Obviously you didn't bother to click on the link provided.
I was quoting a government report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

pg 5

"Lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure"

pg 27

"Nist possesses 236 structural elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings."

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7
"
You obviously didn't read his question:

I challenge you to find one 9/11 investigator who is unsatisfied with the access they had to evidence.
note: I know it's technically not a question. You know what I mean...

He asked if any 9/11 investigators were unsatisfied with the access they had to the evidence. Do you have any or do you not?

 
Did I ever say it was a 'certainty'?

Methinks you're getting me confursed with someone else.
I think not

post #160
C7
"No one can justifiably claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty"

Post #190 starts with
C7 [responding to uk_dave post #183]
"Who are these experts who say it's a certainty?"
and ends with
"You didn't name any experts"

To which you replied
post #191
quote C7: "You didn't name any experts."

Shyam Sunder
William Grosshandeler
H.S. Lew
Richard Bukowski
etc.
etc.

If you are looking for plausible denyability here......

fagedaboudit

Meanwhile, back at the point:

Do you know of any experts who have investigated the collapsed of WTC 7 that say:

"WTC 7 collapsed from debris damage/fire"

Not possibly or aparently, but for sure, 'with certainty'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom