Is this Building 7 ?

Stephen · Moderate Poster Joined: 03 Jul 2006 Posts: 819

I would Like to know if this is building 7 ?

Snowygrouch · Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject:

Yes it is WTC7

Note that this damage does NOT include damage to the steel support of the building.

Fallious · Moderate Poster Joined: 27 Oct 2006 Posts: 762

Yup 7 WT

Could one argue that this damage may in fact have helped the building stay standing, by removing a quantity of the mass that the core structure would normally have to support?

Slightly goofy, but perhaps, no?

Stefan · Banned Joined: 29 Aug 2006 Posts: 1219

Seconded. It's building 7 alright, you can clearly see where that damage was flagged up on NISTs structural diagram (bottom left)....

...and how far away it was from any part of the supporting structure...

Ravenmoon · Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject:

Looking at that, it's lucky it all fell into its own footstep isn't it Shocked

Snowygrouch · Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:58 pm Post subject:

Its impossible is what it is!

(well without 500lbs of RDX and some electrical equipitment)

C.

andyb · Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:36 am Post subject:

Exactly!! Lets stop bickering about the methods of the collapse and how many planes there were!! This exposes the lies and the investigation can determine the means, methods and motives.

egw · Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:17 am Post subject:

I've come to the conclusion that that "New York City Police Department" photo is doctored.

This page has an analysis of the damage to the south face of wtc7, and it has another photo of that corner of the building (near the bottom of the page) which you can compare with the NYPD photo. If you connect up the floors using the soot marks and bigger windows as a reference, you end up with less building in the picture on the left. How can that be? I'd be interested in other people's opinions:

BTW, It weren't me who put together the above comparison with its nice yellow lines and all, but I think the person who did doesn't particluarly want me to go out of my way to give him/her credit for it, so I won't. One thing that doesn't make sense to me is why the author of the page at the link above didn't highlight this discrepancy - you'd think surely they'd have noticed it.

Stephen · Moderate Poster Joined: 03 Jul 2006 Posts: 819

IMO This Picture does weaken are agument, but the picture looks like it's been doctored "Photo Workshop" How come I've never seen these picture's on the 9-11 Truth Videos ? Crying or Very sad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

DDD911 · Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject:

Bongo · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 687

Try sitting on a chair with three legs and see which way you fall Stephen?

... Or a chair with erm... One leg? Laughing

Regards,

Brian. Wink

Stephen · Moderate Poster Joined: 03 Jul 2006 Posts: 819

Snowygrouch · Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:33 am Post subject:

EGW,
because its a photoshop type job its fairly meaningless (at present) as from looking at it I cannot quite fathom exactly what its trying to say or how it was done.

If supplied with those two bits of info it would be alot more useful. Unfortunatley I can put anything into Paintshop Pro and "show" almost anything. If we knew the procedure it then becomes more interesting.

More info please!

C.

Bongo · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 687

Quite the opposite Stephen, the WTC7 photo strengthens the argument that this damage could NOT cause the manner of collapse of the building, if the agument is that this damage was the PRIMARY cause of the collapse.

If this damage was the primary cause of collapse, the building would have toppled over towards where WTC's 1 and 2 stood. And since this did not happen, scientifically, we can eliminate this hypothesis from the list.

In conclusion, the type of damage does not corrolate with the manner of collapse, therefore any link between the two would be highly unlikely. We must also look at it contributing to the collapse, but this hypothesis indicates that it contribuled along with some other mechanism. (and I think the fires have been well ruled out by now.)... So it follows, what was the other mechanism that caused or contributed to the collapse?

Brian.

gareth · Suspended Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 398

egw · Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject:

egw · Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:13 pm Post subject:

Bongo · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 687

Jeez Guys,

you lot can't half over analyse a subject! Rolling Eyes

Honestly who care about photo's (photo-shopped or otherwise)?

The building had to have come down by Controlled Demolition....

....Forget random photographs... Look at the evidence for fox sake!

I dont know??? Rolling Eyes

Hell, watch a video of the collapse of WTC 7 along with re-assessing the BBC's prediction of its' demise... and if this is not enough, have another look at Silverstein telling you what happened (Horses mouth eh?)... and if 'amazingly' you are still stupid enough to doubt the facts, try joining the Republican party! (Or if you are in the UK, the Tory's or Labour will do!)

There is nothing like over analysing a subject to the point of clouding the simplicity of it's facts!

DDD911 · Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:52 am Post subject:

Building 7 collapsing clip:

Link

Anyone says that isn’t controlled demolitions its nuts, just watch that Dutch demolitions guy Danny Jowenko talking about Building 7 it’s priceless.

Danny Jowenko clip:

Link

egw · Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:52 am Post subject:

Stefan · Banned Joined: 29 Aug 2006 Posts: 1219

It's not important.

Whenever people debate me on building 7 and repeat the Popular Mechanics claim that 20% of the building was scooped out at the bottom, I could ask them to produce the photographs or evidence of this (which don't exist), but I don't bother- I just treat it as though it is true and point out it makes no difference.

Debris damage could cause a building collapse; not THAT building collapse. It is impossible unless ALL the columns go, as Danny Jowenko points out in the vid above.

It's the same with this corner damage - real or fake makes no difference; it still couldn't bring the building down, so let's save our breath and say "OK it's real" even if it isn't because even with it, they still don't have a case.

Eckyboy · Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject:

you make some good points egw however I would have to disagree with you on the BBC premature reporting issue. "EVERYBODY KNEW IT WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE" Why should it be assumed naturally by those people around the area that day that the building structure was compromised and ready to collapse when all the available physical evidence shows only fires in the building. It would only be a reasonable explanation if the same warning was put out regarding all the other nearby buildings as they were damaged as well. Yet there is not one mention of any other building about to collapse only WTC7. This is simple to explain. SOMEONE KNEW THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE BEFORE IT ACTUALLY DID.

egw · Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:38 pm Post subject:

Stefan:

Well I guess I think it is important, otherwise I wouldn't bother with it.

Convincing the local full-of-it idiot down at the town hall after an exciting activistic 9/11 Truth presentation isn't very important, I don't think. Convincing people who matter matters. And by that I mean people with integrity, not people who are widely considered "important." The means are just as important as the end with this.

We're living in a den of vipers - that's the bottom line. And most of us still think we're living in PartyCentral. We have to attract the attention of as many good people as we can, to encourage them to be aware. No one needs to act, we just need to build a common awareness to begin with.

But using true facts is the basis of this.

egw · Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject:

Ecky,

It takes a handful of people in positions of power - emergency service managers and their bosses - to co-ordinate something like this.

When the bosses also have control of the media, then they are cooking with gas. When the people in charge warn the people not in charge that the building is going to "collapse," the people not in charge don't have a choice about what to do - the situation is managed.

On 9/11 the situation was highly managed.

Eckyboy · Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject:

I know how it works egw. It does not change the fact that someone supplied the information that WTC7 was going to collapse and we need to find out who this person was. I do agree with you in regards to raising awareness in people but what I think we also need more than anything is Verification of certain rumours and stories without which we will just be going round in circles.

egw · Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject:

No, Eckyboy, the outrage is people knew it was going to be demolished. Don't you think?

Eckyboy · Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject:

thats my whole point though egw. As I mentioned earlier why should it be considered reasonable to assume the building was going to collapse in the first place? The building was demolished no doubt about it.

There are only two possiblities (in my opinion) for the collapse of WTC7.
1. WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition as part of the plan of 911.
2. WTC7 was brought down by safety charges which were installed into the building as a safety measure in case the building was damaged.

For me at least these are the only two possibilities for the demolition of WTC7 although I currently subcribe to the first I have heard a few stories surfacing about the saftey charges and it does explain certain aspects of what happened on 911.

Bongo · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 687

I completely concur with your reasoning EckyBoy! Wink

egw · Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject:

Bongo · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 687

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2