• 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.

Wtc 7

papasmurf said:
I find many statements about sound of collapse, the opinions of demolition experts, and the nature of the collapse that contradict what you have said in this analysis:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

Thought you might be interested.

Why was WTC 7 never mentioned in the commission report?

Why was it's collapse never again aired on TV after 9/11?

So many unanswered questions....

I can't wait for the NIST report that comes out next month. How about you?
Click to expand...

We need a FAQ for this stuff since it gets answered every single day and people don't bother to search. The WTC 7 wasn't mentioned in the 9/11 commission report because the goal of the report was to find out what happened that day and to find ways to prevent it from happening again. So as common sense would dictate, the collapse of WTC7 wasn't really in the scope of the report since it was collateral damage. It wasn't intentionally attacked like the other buildings and instead collapsed as a side effect, just like every single building in the WTC lot was destroyed in the process as well and you won't see the 9/11 commission report on each one. It's not their job and there are proper groups such as NIST to deal with such things.

The collapse of WTC 7 not only is not "not" shown on TV since, It's shown on TV on a regular basis. I see it all the time. Why would you think that it has never been shown on TV again? Is it because that's what some cult tabloid told you? And do you not watch TV at all ever? Clearly that unnswered question of yours is absolutely absurd. Because even if it was true (which is about as legitimate a claim as saying the moon is made of cheese), it would in no way shape or form have any influence on how the building fell.

I am sure there are many MANY silly and absurd questions.
 
Keep apologizing for the lies and deceit of the Bush administration, that will get this country far.

There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.
 
papasmurf said:
Keep apologizing for the lies and deceit of the Bush administration, that will get this country far.

There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.
Click to expand...
Really? There was no reason to include 7 since it was not attacked, nor did anybody die. So, why don't you give us your "expert" opinion as to why it should have been included in the 9/11 Commission report.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
The collapse of WTC 7 not only is not "not" shown on TV since, It's shown on TV on a regular basis. I see it all the time. Why would you think that it has never been shown on TV again? Is it because that's what some cult tabloid told you? And do you not watch TV at all ever? Clearly that unnswered question of yours is absolutely absurd. Because even if it was true (which is about as legitimate a claim as saying the moon is made of cheese), it would in no way shape or form have any influence on how the building fell.
Click to expand...



papasmurf said:
There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.
Click to expand...


Wow, your comprehension skills are FREAKIN' AWESOME!!
rock.gif
 
papasmurf said:
Keep apologizing for the lies and deceit of the Bush administration, that will get this country far.

There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.
Click to expand...
Should we investigate and indite the towers (WTC 1/2) for falling on the building (WTC 7).
 
Last edited:
papasmurf said:
Keep apologizing for the lies and deceit of the Bush administration, that will get this country far.

There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.
Click to expand...


Building seven was a property loss. Nothing more. No one was killed in it. It was collateral damage from the target buildings which were the towers. Did the commission address the Marriott? building six? how about five?
 
papasmurf said:
Keep apologizing for the lies and deceit of the Bush administration, that will get this country far.

There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.
Click to expand...

That's what apologists do papasmurf.

If Official Story bigotry is what you are into, than this is
the central headquarters.

If you want a serious open minded discussion, I suggest you try here;
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

MM
 
Miragememories said:
That's what apologists do papasmurf.

If Official Story bigotry is what you are into, than this is
the central headquarters.

If you want a serious open minded discussion, I suggest you try here;
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

MM
Click to expand...

By open minded he means quote mining and using conjecture to replace hard evidence and using youtube videos made by teens to reject real experts. By open minded he means replacing scientific method with speculation and hearsay. If that's what you're looking for than yes, those cult tabloid boards are a perfect fit.

:dl:
 
papasmurf said:
Keep apologizing for the lies and deceit of the Bush administration, that will get this country far.

There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.
Click to expand...

And they left out prom night too! How could they overlook that? What possible reason could they have for not covering the prom? There's absolutely no reason for it at all.

Oh and BTW, if they stopped showing it on the news, how come I see it on TV just about every week? And ya know, they stopped showing the JFK assassination on the news too. Guess that proves it's an inside job eh? In fact I guess anything that isn't constantly repeated every day on the news must be an inside job. How can we not have every news event in history re-covered every night throughout the rest of time? What's with this "new" stuff being aired??
 
Miragememories said:
That's what apologists do papasmurf.

If Official Story bigotry is what you are into, than this is
the central headquarters.

If you want a serious open minded discussion, I suggest you try here;
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

MM
Click to expand...

Well, did they mention the Marriot, Building 5 or 6 or any others damaged or collapsing on that day as has been asked?

Why should they mention WTC7?

Your only hope is that you keep convincing yourself that everyone here is a Bush lover and this is what keeps us believing what you think is lies. If you actually start to realise that the majority here have no love for Mr Bush and also are not even american you will see that you have one less arrow in your ad hom sling and one less comfort blanket.

You've been duped by some very stupid ignorant liars. Are people who lie like papasmurf what you want to be involved in your TM?
 
:bump2 for anyone who may have missed alienentity's new vid. Check it out.

And thanks alienentity.
 
R.Mackey said:
"Gradually crippling" is inconsistent with your claims that the structure all failed simultaneously. Therefore, according to you, this scenario should also result in a highly asymmetric collapse.

This is false. Building collapses of this magnitude are expected to be total, and rapid, without exception. See Appendix B of my whitepaper; see also comments in this thread (I think around Page 8) where I answer several questions regarding the evolution and failure of WTC 7.

ETA: I was way off -- the WTC 7 specific part of that discussion begins on Page 14, with my first response of interest at Post #539.
Click to expand...

No they arent....

Otherwise why would trained and experienced firefighters be way up in a building and got caught(and died)fighting smallish fires.
If they had even a small inkling the building was going to come down, they would never had gone up there.......(WTC)
 
roundhead said:
No they arent....

Otherwise why would trained and experienced firefighters be way up in a building and got caught(and died)fighting smallish fires.
If they had even a small inkling the building was going to come down, they would never had gone up there.......(WTC)
Click to expand...

A firefighters first job is to go in and fight the fire. That is what they did with the towers. There were problems from the start though. First was the size of the buildings and the task of getting equipment and manpower up to the fire floors. Next was the lack of water, so the immediate job then is to try to get water. Compounding this is the fact that these were multi-level fires that were all large scale fires and all started at the same time with a massive amount of accellerant. (a situation rarely, if ever experienced before anywhere) then there was the communications problems, firefighters were reporting conditions but there was a muddle in trying to get all that info to the people who needed to know. A FF can report a local floor failure but if the central communications cannot make sure that multiple reports of such events are getting to the Commanders then neither the individual FF's or the Commanders will be aware that things are goig very badly. In fact the Police Command ordered all of their officers out of the building and some fire commanders did the same. Others though never got the word even though others from their own station did and some commanders never got the word from the Police that the structure was failing. furthermore some FF's refused orders to evacuate.

In the case of the north tower though, with the obvious possiblity of similar collapse FF's did evacuate. Fire fighters did not need their Commanders to say that the building 'could' collapse, that much was patently obvious, and thus they would be on their toes waiting to hear an evac order one would expect. Still, fire fighters are known for bravery and drive to assist others in such situations. IIRC there were instances of FF's staying with disabled persons or others who were slower moving and in need of assistance rather than evacuate themselves as quickly as possible.


In WTC 7, with the building already evacuated of civilians, with the knowledge that there was little in the way of FF'ting that could be done all FF's were ordered out and all left. The building was watched closely, measurements were done that indicated that the structure was unstable and a collapse zone perimeter was set up in case it too collapsed. A prudent step to take in hindsight.

ETA: removed comment that may well have been removed by the mods anyway
 
roundhead said:
No they arent....

Otherwise why would trained and experienced firefighters be way up in a building and got caught(and died)fighting smallish fires.
If they had even a small inkling the building was going to come down, they would never had gone up there.......(WTC)
Click to expand...
Fires in building seven were not fought. Nor did any firefighters die in building seven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom