• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Watch Building 7 Collapse

Whitewing

Well-known member
:D You've not read ANYTHING I've linked in all these threads have you Shamu?

And thanks for posting that viddy. You can clealy see the building DOES NOT fall in the controlled fashion of demolitions but falls to one side as explained and shown in all the links I've posted but that you've ignored.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
:D You've not read ANYTHING I've linked in all these threads have you Shamu?

And thanks for posting that viddy. You can clealy see the building DOES NOT fall in the controlled fashion of demolitions but falls to one side as explained and shown in all the links I've posted but that you've ignored.

did NIST ADMIT FREEFALL SPEED was achieved during the collapse? YES

if they admit this, it does not happen by falling sideways...wtf are you trying to prove here...is this how you sleep at night? lying to yourself?
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
From another thread:

Whitewing said:
shaumei said:
freefall speed on wtc7 is impossible without removing all resistance. NIST ADMITTED FREEFALL SPEED. to remove all resistance you must have demolition.

Not that I'd doubt your command of facts or how those facts are presented in your arguments, but could you provide some links to the NIST findings you keep referencing?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
From another thread:

Whitewing said:
shaumei said:
freefall speed on wtc7 is impossible without removing all resistance. NIST ADMITTED FREEFALL SPEED. to remove all resistance you must have demolition.

Not that I'd doubt your command of facts or how those facts are presented in your arguments, but could you provide some links to the NIST findings you keep referencing?

you have one of two choices...you can go to the government site and read their reports....or see NIST discussing after 7 years their explanations of how wtc7 fell in its footprint when no plane hit it...

this requires patience and about 30 minutes of your life to understand the lies behind 9/11...if you want to fully understand it from a technical stance watch 9/11 Blueprint for Truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl4jbNA5Nlo&p=376A6081A505839D&playnext=1&index=2
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
shaumei said:
Whitewing said:
From another thread:

Whitewing said:
Not that I'd doubt your command of facts or how those facts are presented in your arguments, but could you provide some links to the NIST findings you keep referencing?

you have one of two choices...you can go to the government site and read their reports....or see NIST discussing after 7 years their explanations of how wtc7 fell in its footprint when no plane hit it...

this requires patience and about 30 minutes of your life to understand the lies behind 9/11...if you want to fully understand it from a technical stance watch 9/11 Blueprint for Truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl4jbNA5Nlo&p=376A6081A505839D&playnext=1&index=2

Sorry bud, no "Blueprint for Truth" video. I've given you the links you asked for (and have totally ignored). Now it's time for you to do some searching and provide some links to the NIST report you keep commenting on.

And tell me Shamu, do buildings across the street from WTC7 constitute part of its footprint? That must have been a really big foot.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east. Just not like a steel reinforced concrete building would. Another telling photo is this one taken closer to the event date.

b7debris.jpg


Note just past building 7 is a small amount of debris on the white building behind it. (Building 7 is pile in the upper center-left of the photo. The white building is at the top center-left of the photo.) That building is to the north east corner of building 7. Note about 1/3rd of the east side of the building falling to the north in the photo below.

Here is another photo from over Building 7. The white building is on the left. Note the debris from building 7 which crossed the street and landed on top of the white building.

barclay.jpg


wtc7_Collapse_P.jpg


This suggests the building was split by the penthouse collapses most of the way down. One section went to the south-east while a smaller section went to the north. It wasn't that symmetrical.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
what do you mean NO BLUEPRINT FOR TRUTH VIDEO? It appears you know what not to watch to stay brainwashed.....lol...

this video proves me correct in 10 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl4jbNA5Nlo&p=376A6081A505839D&playnext=1&index=2
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
shaumei said:
what do you mean NO BLUEPRINT FOR TRUTH VIDEO? It appears you know what not to watch to stay brainwashed.....lol...

this video proves me correct in 10 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl4jbNA5Nlo&p=376A6081A505839D&playnext=1&index=2

I've watched the video before numbnut and it proves nothing you've rambled about since you began trolling this place.

Now, how about a link to those NIST findings you keep saying prove your point as well?
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
shaumei said:
what do you mean NO BLUEPRINT FOR TRUTH VIDEO? It appears you know what not to watch to stay brainwashed.....lol...

this video proves me correct in 10 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl4jbNA5Nlo&p=376A6081A505839D&playnext=1&index=2

You're just a patsy for the Freemasons, Shamwow. Everybody knows they control the world.

And, yes, it's OK not to be in love with Muslims, (even though they had nothing to do with 9/11 :wink: ) after what they did to Nick Berg.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
So I go back and look at that series of videos, again, just to humor Shamu. And, just as I predicted, the NIST findings that Shamu claims prove his agrument do nothing of the sort.

Shamu claims repeatedly that NIST FINALLY ADMITS WTC7 FELL AT FREEFALL SPEED, right?

Uh, Shamu, not so. Go to the video tape my mentally-impaired friend.

NIST admitted that a stage of the collapse of WTC7 occured at freefall speed (2.25 seconds to be exact), not that the building collapsed at freefall speed which is what you've claimed they've said.

Even the guy who produced the video claimed only that a portion of the NW corner of WTC7 fell at a rate within a few percent of freefall speed.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Ol' Chandler really finished with a bang, didn't he?

Geez, based on that series of videos there are hundreds, if not thousands of government folks all involved in the cover-up of how WTC7 was brought down.

We can only hope that one day, ONE of them will come forward and admit the truth.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
So I go back and look at that series of videos, again, just to humor Shamu. And, just as I predicted, the NIST findings that Shamu claims prove his agrument do nothing of the sort.

Shamu claims repeatedly that NIST FINALLY ADMITS WTC7 FELL AT FREEFALL SPEED, right?

Uh, Shamu, not so. Go to the video tape my mentally-impaired friend.

NIST admitted that a stage of the collapse of WTC7 occured at freefall speed (2.25 seconds to be exact), not that the building collapsed at freefall speed which is what you've claimed they've said.

Even the guy who produced the video claimed only that a portion of the NW corner of WTC7 fell at a rate within a few percent of freefall speed.

Shampooie reacted the same when I showed that the world trade center started collapsing internally seven minutes before the final dramatic collapse of the outer facade.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Steve said:
Whitewing said:
So I go back and look at that series of videos, again, just to humor Shamu. And, just as I predicted, the NIST findings that Shamu claims prove his agrument do nothing of the sort.

Shamu claims repeatedly that NIST FINALLY ADMITS WTC7 FELL AT FREEFALL SPEED, right?

Uh, Shamu, not so. Go to the video tape my mentally-impaired friend.

NIST admitted that a stage of the collapse of WTC7 occured at freefall speed (2.25 seconds to be exact), not that the building collapsed at freefall speed which is what you've claimed they've said.

Even the guy who produced the video claimed only that a portion of the NW corner of WTC7 fell at a rate within a few percent of freefall speed.

Shampooie reacted the same when I showed that the world trade center started collapsing internally seven minutes before the final dramatic collapse of the outer facade.

I'm ashamed to admit, but I've wasted a significant amount of my ever-decreasing lifespan looking at those silly 9-11 Half-truth.org videos.

Not one of them I have ever seen has addressed why/how WTC7 was leaning prior to its collapse. Of course, I'm sure that was a trick that some neocon threw into the mix just to confuse those of us who are weak of mind.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Intense heat can draw (pull) most anything, the tower leaning intense heat in the center and lower could have pulled it back into a simi upright condition
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Well, let's just cut through all the foolishness and ask a simple question.

What's more likely, that WTC7 fell because two 100 story buildings next to it collapsed (one of them tearing a 20 story gash it its side and setting it afire) or that Israeli agents with the active or tacit approval of our government planted explosives in the building so they could bring it down at the same time they brought down the two 100 story buildings?

There were 7 World Trade Center buildings in the complex. Why did the Israeli agents stop at the Twin Towers and WTC7? Why not take them all out at the same time?

Now, a final question for Shamu. Just what the heck was Pearl Harbor doing in the middle of the Pacific on Dec 7, 1941?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
So I go back and look at that series of videos, again, just to humor Shamu. And, just as I predicted, the NIST findings that Shamu claims prove his agrument do nothing of the sort.

Shamu claims repeatedly that NIST FINALLY ADMITS WTC7 FELL AT FREEFALL SPEED, right?

Uh, Shamu, not so. Go to the video tape my mentally-impaired friend.

NIST admitted that a stage of the collapse of WTC7 occured at freefall speed (2.25 seconds to be exact), not that the building collapsed at freefall speed which is what you've claimed they've said.

Even the guy who produced the video claimed only that a portion of the NW corner of WTC7 fell at a rate within a few percent of freefall speed.

how can this be done without all resistance being removed? you claim that fires did it...how did isolated fires remove all resistance to allow free fall?
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
shaumei said:
Whitewing said:
So I go back and look at that series of videos, again, just to humor Shamu. And, just as I predicted, the NIST findings that Shamu claims prove his agrument do nothing of the sort.

Shamu claims repeatedly that NIST FINALLY ADMITS WTC7 FELL AT FREEFALL SPEED, right?

Uh, Shamu, not so. Go to the video tape my mentally-impaired friend.

NIST admitted that a stage of the collapse of WTC7 occured at freefall speed (2.25 seconds to be exact), not that the building collapsed at freefall speed which is what you've claimed they've said.

Even the guy who produced the video claimed only that a portion of the NW corner of WTC7 fell at a rate within a few percent of freefall speed.

how can this be done without all resistance being removed? you claim that fires did it...how did isolated fires remove all resistance to allow free fall?

How can it be done? I think you had a combination of factors.

1) The unusual support structure design....designed to give the lower levels an open feeling.

2) The fires burning in differing parts of the building.

3) The 20 story gash in the side of the building caused by falling debris from one of the towers.

In my humble opinion, and after watching numerous videos and reading pro-conspiracy and non-conspiracy sites, the extensive damage caused by falling debris and the fires eventually weakened the building to the point where it began to lean.

It eventually leaned enough that support structures on the southside gave away and that side of the building began collapsing first. As it did, the stresses on the remaining support beams was overwhelming and they gave way as well resulting in the 2.25 seconds of free fall.

A single video from a single direction is used by the Half-truthers to make the gigantic leap that the building was demolished via explosives planted before the attacks ever began.

Sorry Charlie, but I'm going to have to see a lot better evidence of a MASSIVE government coverup before I buy this baloney.
 
Top