Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 Building 7: The Smoking Gun of the 9/11 Inside Job
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

SilentKoala
New Member

15 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:11:54  Show Profile Send SilentKoala a Private Message  Reply with Quote
In this thread I will use the anomalies surrounding the collapse of WTC Building 7 to draw my conclusion that 9/11 was undeniably an inside job.

For those who don't know, Building 7 was a 570-foot, 47-floor building located near the twin towers and was part of the World Trade Center complex. The building collapsed at 5:30 pm eastern time.

According to the official explaination of the building's collapse, debris from the collapses of the twin towers weakened the structure and ignited fires inside the building (how dust debris can start a fire is beyond me, but I'll get to that later).

Building 7 was positioned as follows:



1. As you can see above, building 7 was located behind and therefore shielded by buildings 5 and 6. Buildings 5 and 6 did not collapse. Yet, building 7 did. The amount of debris that affected building 7 had to have been significantly less than the amount that walloped buildings 5 and 6 because of the relative positions of each building. And this smaller amount of debris that hit building 7 was supposedly enough to cause the entire building to collapse. The obvious question then remains, why didn't buildings 5 or 6 collapse?

2. The official explaination of the buildling's collapse states that the fires inside the building weakened the structure enough for it to collapse. The fires that ingited inside the building are pictured below:

It is an absolutely ridiculous assertion that a few small fires in isolated parts of the building were enough to cause it to completely collapse, considering that in comparison, the Windsor building in Madrid was a raging inferno for almost 24 hours, and did not even come close to collapsing. This comparison has been well-documented here: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

3. Building 7 came down in a perfectly symetrical manner at free-fall speed. Even if you do choose to take the extraodinary leap of faith to believe that some dust and debris and a couple fires collapsed the building, any collapse as a result of those causes would not be a symetrical, free-fall collapse to the ground. The manner in which the building came down is, however, exactly consistent with a controlled demolition.

4. Firefighters and EMT personal working at Ground Zero around the time of the collapse have come forward in saying they were told by authorities that building was about to be demolished, as well as having heard countdowns announced over frequencies in the area. These are documented here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm

5. Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building, and the person who made the most money off of the 9/11 attacks, is on tape saying that he and the fire department agreed to "pull it" - a term used in the demolition field to denote the demolition of a building. Skeptics often try to use the ridiculous arguement that he was refering to "pulling the firefighters out of the building" which makes no sense since people don't use the pronoun "it" to refer to something plural such as firefighters. A tape of him saying this is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S3U6xsrTEA

6. Perhaps the biggest smoking gun of all, the fact that the BBC reported the building's collapse 26 mintues in advance, while the building was still standing. You can see a recording of this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

This is proof of media scripting and foreknowledge, and could only have happened if the authorities knew they were going to bring down the building in advance, via controlled demolition, and accidently press released early.

What's more shocking is the fact that the day after this new revelation surfaced, and people began requesting a copy of the official tape from the BBC, the BBC came foward with a ridiculous statement saying that they lost all of their coverage of 9/11! This is documented here: http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/280207BBC.htm

The fact that building 7 was a controlled demolition is proof that the entire 9/11 attack was a full-blown inside job, for 2 reasons:

1. A controlled demolition takes weeks, sometimes even months, to plan, and simply cannot be carried out on a day's notice. Even after all the blueprint planning is done, it can take days to actually place all the charges correctly. This is compounded more by the fact that logisitally speaking it would have been much more difficult to carry out the demolition while the whole area was blocked off and in rubble.

2. Had the building been deliberately demolished, the government would have no reason to lie about it. The reason they are lying about it is because if they come foward and say that it was a controlled demolition, the arguement in the paragraph above would prevail.

My conclusion is that the building was deliberately demolished, and that poor communitcation between authorities in charge of the inside job resulted in the inconsitant statements by Larry Silverstein and others. My belief is that much of the operation itself was planned from building 7 and the demolition of that building took place to destroy the evidence.

Edited by - SilentKoala on 05/07/2007 19:13:45

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:20:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SilentKoala

3. Building 7 came down in a perfectly symetrical manner at free-fall speed.
Your whole argument centers around these two assertions. The building did not collapse symmetrically, as even a cursory examination of the wreckage shows (nor did it "collapse into its own footprint," as the girders in the streets show). And how fast the building fell tells us nothing about how it was brought down.

Why don't you present a solid, well-researched argument as to why symmetrical collapse and near free-fall speeds are exclusive signatures of pre-planned building demolition?

Can you even find a single video of the complete collapse of a 47-story building not due to fire or demolition for us to compare?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

dmayer76
New Member

17 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:20:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send dmayer76 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
All of these rediculous conspiracy theories and more, are debunked here. Don't rely on Youtube videos to find the truth. The real "truth" is usually boring and technical..and 9-11 deniars can't handle it.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
Go to Top of Page

j911ob
Skeptic Friend

223 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:23:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send j911ob a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by SilentKoala

3. Building 7 came down in a perfectly symetrical manner at free-fall speed.
Your whole argument centers around these two assertions. The building did not collapse symmetrically, as even a cursory examination of the wreckage shows (nor did it "collapse into its own footprint," as the girders in the streets show). And how fast the building fell tells us nothing about how it was brought down.

Why don't you present a solid, well-researched argument as to why symmetrical collapse and near free-fall speeds are exclusive signatures of pre-planned building demolition?

Can you even find a single video of the complete collapse of a 47-story building not due to fire or demolition for us to compare?



No but every building collapse that displays the characteristics of 7 has been a controlled demolition.

If this is so obviously a collapse where is the report on it? Why are NIST studying hypothetical blast scenarios?

"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers.
Go to Top of Page

SilentKoala
New Member

15 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:27:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send SilentKoala a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by dmayer76

All of these rediculous conspiracy theories and more, are debunked here. Don't rely on Youtube videos to find the truth. The real "truth" is usually boring and technical..and 9-11 deniars can't handle it.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html



How about actually refuting what I have to say in your own words, instead of cutting and pasting a link to another site? Everything I presented was in my own words.

The "Loose Change Guide" does not address the BBC early report of the building's collapse, nor does it address the countless number of ground zero witness who have come forward saying they were told building 7 was about to be demolished. It also does not properly address Larry Silverstien's comments, instead it just uses the same erroneous arguement I already commented on in the OP. The building 7 arguements cannot even be touched, that's why the 9/11 commission report ignored the subject, and that's why I am using it here to prove the facts about 9/11.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:30:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building, and the person who made the most money off of the 9/11 attacks, is on tape saying that he and the fire department agreed to "pull it" - a term used in the demolition field to denote the demolition of a building. Skeptics often try to use the ridiculous arguement that he was refering to "pulling the firefighters out of the building" which makes no sense since people don't use the pronoun "it" to refer to something plural such as firefighters
Unless, perhaps, "it" refers to a collective (e.g. a team or squad or regiment of firefighters). Also, does it make more sense for a guy to admit on tape that he wanted to have the building destroyed to make money?
Go to Top of Page

j911ob
Skeptic Friend

223 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:31:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send j911ob a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by dmayer76

All of these rediculous conspiracy theories and more, are debunked here. Don't rely on Youtube videos to find the truth. The real "truth" is usually boring and technical..and 9-11 deniars can't handle it.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html




What exactly is the expertise of the man who wrote that paper?

"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:32:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob

No but every building collapse that displays the characteristics of 7 has been a controlled demolition.
Every one? Where is your evidence for that?
quote:
If this is so obviously a collapse where is the report on it? Why are NIST studying hypothetical blast scenarios?
Your questions aren't evidence that WTC 7 was brought down via pre-planned demolition.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

SilentKoala
New Member

15 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:33:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send SilentKoala a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

quote:
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building, and the person who made the most money off of the 9/11 attacks, is on tape saying that he and the fire department agreed to "pull it" - a term used in the demolition field to denote the demolition of a building. Skeptics often try to use the ridiculous arguement that he was refering to "pulling the firefighters out of the building" which makes no sense since people don't use the pronoun "it" to refer to something plural such as firefighters
Unless, perhaps, "it" refers to a collective (e.g. a team or squad or regiment of firefighters). Also, does it make more sense for a guy to admit on tape that he wanted to have the building destroyed to make money?


Like I said, poor communication between the between the conspirators resulted in the inconsitencies of people's statements afterwards. He probably thought that the official explaination would be that they demolished the building after it had been weekened, because of the danger it then posed. After they all realized that that explaination would land them in hot water, they backtracked and said they had no idea why it came down or that the fires caused it to come down.
Go to Top of Page

j911ob
Skeptic Friend

223 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:35:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send j911ob a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by j911ob

No but every building collapse that displays the characteristics of 7 has been a controlled demolition.
Every one? Where is your evidence for that?
quote:
If this is so obviously a collapse where is the report on it? Why are NIST studying hypothetical blast scenarios?
Your questions aren't evidence that WTC 7 was brought down via pre-planned demolition.



So where is the evidence it was a collapse due to fire? Please present some.

"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers.
Go to Top of Page

dmayer76
New Member

17 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:37:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send dmayer76 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Interesting. Please provide quotes from people who were told "WTC 7 has been loaded with explosives and we are about to bring it down"

We have all seen the videos where people predicted the building would collapse...this is not special....considering that wtc 1 and 2 had already collapsed hours earlier.

as to the BBC announcemant of WTC 7's collapse before it happens..its called the main stream media playing telephone with information. CNN and NBC told their audience that WTC 7 "may have collapsed or will collapse soon". BBC jumped on it and mistakenly claimed the building came down.

But because you are a conspiracy theorist, you refuse to find the simplist explenation. You instead prefer to find the most sinister, demonic, and conspiratorial explenation you can find. Must suck to think that way.

9-11 was not an inside job. Please deal with reality.
Go to Top of Page

SilentKoala
New Member

15 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:46:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send SilentKoala a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by dmayer76

Interesting. Please provide quotes from people who were told "WTC 7 has been loaded with explosives and we are about to bring it down"

We have all seen the videos where people predicted the building would collapse...this is not special....considering that wtc 1 and 2 had already collapsed hours earlier.

as to the BBC announcemant of WTC 7's collapse before it happens..its called the main stream media playing telephone with information. CNN and NBC told their audience that WTC 7 "may have collapsed or will collapse soon". BBC jumped on it and mistakenly claimed the building came down.

But because you are a conspiracy theorist, you refuse to find the simplist explenation. You instead prefer to find the most sinister, demonic, and conspiratorial explenation you can find. Must suck to think that way.

9-11 was not an inside job. Please deal with reality.


The quotes are linked to in the OP.

I refuse the find the simplest explaination? The simplest explaination based on the evidence is the explaination I have stated. The only thing that gets in the way of that explaination is your belief that the government would "never do such a thing" (even though it is the same government that protects the rigths of women to rip unborn babies out of their stomachs and throw them in the garbage at a rate of several milliaon a year, lies to the american public about everything, lied to invade a foriegn country, tortures prisoners, and has shreded our constitution and our civil liberties).

It takes a much bigger leap of faith to believe that some dust and debris and a couple fires brought down and entire skyscraper, that all the inconstistant statements regarding what happened were just a coincidence, and that the collapse of the building being a carbon copy of a controlled demolition was just a coincidience. You sure have to believe in a lot of voodoo and a lot of coincidences to believe the official story. The simplest explaination is that it was an inside job, whether you want to believe it or not.

Because you are a skeptic, you refuse to believe anything outside of the mainstream official reality could ever be true. You are probably an atheist too, I'm guessing.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:50:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob

So where is the evidence it was a collapse due to fire? Please present some.
I never made any such claim, so why should I present evidence for it? Oh, I know: to distract away from the fact that you can provide no evidence for your claim that "every building collapse that displays the characteristics of 7 has been a controlled demolition."

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

dmayer76
New Member

17 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  19:52:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send dmayer76 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Boy, it would really be convenient for you if I believed everything that governmant told me. But I dont. WMD's in Iraq were clearly a lie, Bush screwed up Katrina, Bush has screwed up everything he touches.

Governmants can and do create false-flag events. But the fact that they can..and do...does not provide any evidence that they DID on 9-11.

The Republicans and Neo-cons are trying to scare us about Iran, Syria, terror cells in the USA...but I dont believe most of it. I can smell a scare tactic when I see it.

And thats why when I read about false-flags here...false-flags there...I feel the same skepticism. You 9-11 deniars and the Neo-Cons are two sides of the same coin...scare tactics, uninformed conclusions, deceitful logic, and outright lies.

9-11 was not an inside job. Deal with it.
Go to Top of Page

SilentKoala
New Member

15 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  20:06:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send SilentKoala a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by dmayer76

Boy, it would really be convenient for you if I believed everything that governmant told me. But I dont. WMD's in Iraq were clearly a lie, Bush screwed up Katrina, Bush has screwed up everything he touches.

Governmants can and do create false-flag events. But the fact that they can..and do...does not provide any evidence that they DID on 9-11.

The Republicans and Neo-cons are trying to scare us about Iran, Syria, terror cells in the USA...but I dont believe most of it. I can smell a scare tactic when I see it.

And thats why when I read about false-flags here...false-flags there...I feel the same skepticism. You 9-11 deniars and the Neo-Cons are two sides of the same coin...scare tactics, uninformed conclusions, deceitful logic, and outright lies.

9-11 was not an inside job. Deal with it.


What scare tactics have I used? I've only stated a collection of facts, and used logical reasoning to draw a conclusion. I never said the government's dishonesty was proof they were dishonest about 9/11, I said the opposite is not true. I said that you cannot use the arguement that the government would never do such a thing to refute 9/11 conspiracy theories because their behavior in other situations shows that they would do such a thing.

You have yet to provide a single counter-argument to anything I've stated in the OP, by the way. The fact that thus far you've only personally attacked my with ad hominems is proof that you can't debate my actual arguements and is a sign that I am right and you are wrong.

Oh and, I should point out that the term "9/11 deniers" is a term used to describe believers of the official story. You are a 9/11 denier, I am a 9/11 truther.
Go to Top of Page

j911ob
Skeptic Friend

223 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2007 :  20:07:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send j911ob a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by j911ob

So where is the evidence it was a collapse due to fire? Please present some.
I never made any such claim, so why should I present evidence for it? Oh, I know: to distract away from the fact that you can provide no evidence for your claim that "every building collapse that displays the characteristics of 7 has been a controlled demolition."



So you have no position on building 7 then? Right well our discourse is over. I have no desire to play childish games with a troll who wont has no stance and just says back up that claim.

"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.19 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000