-96 votes

Placing WTC 7 Video In Context

I have, for a long time, believed that Building 7 was a controlled demolition. This belief was based primarily on information from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. But I was recently shown information that makes me doubt this.

Most videos do not show the whole collapse. They limit the video to only the shots that show the exterior of the building coming down. They crop out the collapse of the east penthouse which clearly shows the interior of the structure collapsing long before the exterior wall. Watch the whole collapse for yourself and observe the windows breaking under the collapsing east penthouse.

http://youtu.be/XrnmbUDeHus?t=10s

This more complete video lines up perfectly with the NIST model of collapse. The video below shows NISTS modeling of the interior collapse of the building. (not the exterior wall as it is often claimed) Their model actually explains what happened very well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEj8_oC9PZ8

If after the above you still think WTC 7 was demolished listen to this whole interview and see how you feel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsN-X_RDC6o

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully contemplate this complex topic. I would be happy to hear your reflections on this information.

++++++++
Update:

Another issue that was raised in the comments is the misleading way the fires in building 7 are presented. Imagine if people presented balanced information and showed this video as well.

http://youtu.be/jk5o-zmvMiM

The firefighters recording the video are obviously concerned that the building is coming down due to the fire and damage. It’s not hard to see why.

If the 9/11 Truth movement wants to be taken seriously and make headway in breaking into the mainstream it will have to confront these issues. Continuing to present this issue in a biased manner will only decrease credibility and take away momentum from answering the many legitimate questions there are about 9/11.

Simply down-voting a post, ridiculing the poster for asking basic questions and failing to address the content of the post is not a constructive strategy for advancing an idea. Isn’t that the whole point of the 9/11 Truth Movement… to ask questions?

++++++++++
Update 2:
I originally titled this post "I Was Wrong -WTC 7 Not Demolition."
I changed this to the above title after receiving feedback that I was drawing a conclusion instead of asking questions. I do not know and do not claim to know what happened. I just ran across a video that put this issue in a larger context that seems pertinent to the discussion.

The video clearly shows major interior structural damage ~7 seconds before the typical collapse video starts. This undermines one of the main positions that convinced me of controlled demolition... namely that all of the core columns failed simultaneously. This is just not true.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

So often, when discussing the subject of how WTC7 (and even the other two towers) fell; heat from fires as a result of the jets crashing into the two buildings (and the subsequent fires in some of the other buildings) vs. controlled demolition, whether it be on discussion boards such as this one or videos that I’ve watched, people that maintain the position that the only way the buildings (especially WTC7) could have fallen was through controlled demolition (and we keep hearing the word “thermite” from that crowd), will cite their own professional background as proof that they know what they are talking about. This particular discussion is a good example of that. There have been people in this discussion that post comments citing their background in such a way as to demonstrate their own expertise and how it helps them to conclude, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that WTC7 was taken down by controlled demolitions. I’ve seen people say things like “I’m a construction worker” or “work in commercial refrigeration” or “I was a CPO in the Navy” (without citing his exact training or type of work I might add). And, here’s my point to this post: All of you that say stupid stuff like this sound like you’re really saying “I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night”. For those that can’t figure out what I mean, simply put, you have no valid friggin’ life experience to pronounce with assurance that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Stop making yourself look like stupid little children!

My first post expressed the opinion that it is certainly possible that the Federal Government is culpable but that they did not plan and execute the operation. I maintain the position that airplanes caused the fires that took the buildings down and that those airplanes were hijacked by people OUTSIDE of the U.S. Government. The feds may have gotten word of the plan and helped to ensure it’s success by planning “training” operations and diverting military assets and by purposely “bumbling” the tracking of the hijackers but, my theory does NOT involve demolitions planted in the buildings and it does not involve U.S. Government agents ACTIVELY participating. What is my training/expertise/professional background that makes me so sure of this? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! I possess NO skills/training/knowledge having to do with explosives, thermite, construction, mechanical engineering, physics, or anything else that might be applicable. What skills DO I possess? Critical thinking, logic, reasoning, and common sense. That’s all the skills necessary to arrive at my theory after having examined evidence and listened to highly knowledgeable people discuss the issue.

So, in summary, for those of you calling into question my training/skills/knowledge and citing your own, you are all full of shit, know nothing about what you speak of, and make yourself sound terminally stupid. Remember, you sound like you’re saying “I stayed at a Holiday In Express last night”….

Thank you for confirming you know nothing

now I understand how you can conclude the nonsense you conclude.

Priceless

Out of everything in my post, that is the part that he pulls out.

Do you work for the MSM? The way you focused on that "sound bite" was almost professional. Reminded me of MSNBC or Fox News.

Speaking of Training/Skills/Knowledge

Dr. Robert Bowman has Training/Skills/Knowledge. He holds a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering and was the head of the "Star Wars" program under presidents Carter and Ford. Give a listen to what he has to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlGm9ZorT4Q

Also check out www.ae911truth.org. Over 1700 architects and engineers don't buy the official story either.

Thanks for the vids.

Fires so tiny that the cameraman needs to zoom in on to see, and three unchallenged "experts" knocking down a silly strawman regarding NYFD complicency? THIS is what changed your mind?

I have to call " BS" on this "I used to believe" stuff;

I've been replying to various aspects of this discussion, but only now did I twig to this:

If you long believed 9/11 to be a matter of controlled demolition, how could the thought of an earlier start of collapse for the penthouse area turn your beliefs around -- or shake them in the slightest?

What part of the "truther" story did you find compelling enough to bring about your belief in the first place? Was it only the "simultaneous failure" notion you're now citing as reason to doubt the disbelievers in the official story? If so, your belief was based on nothing of consequence. If not, then you need to explain why this penthouse stuff shook your assessment of all the rest. The lame argument that interpretation of the penthouse collapse somehow ignored important context (without any explanation of why this penthouse stuff actually DOES disregard some kind of context) sure looks like a canard.

Put a bit differently, if you really believed in controlled demolition before, it certainly couldn't have been for any good reason if this sudden interpretation of the timing of penthouse collapse could have changed your belief.

Your entire approach here strongly seems disingenuous.

Don't confuse me with new facts! My mind is made up!!

It is curious -- and more than a little pathetic -- that this link currently has a MINUS 95. The author actually put together THREE very substantial videos to support his new hypothesis -- none of which I had previously been aware of. He should be given accolades for his presentation EVEN IF you still disagree with his hypothesis.

Instead he -- through his thread -- is effectively being stoned from a distance ... I guess the "Truthers" are most interested in burying their dissenters under mountains of rocks than actively engaging them in rational debate?

Pathetic. Something more fitted to a cockroach than to a man.

One FACT is: a belief is a FANTASY perhaps seeded by a fact or two, perhaps starting as a hypothesis -- which then takes on a life of its own, hiding in the crevasses and rot holes of the human psyche. A belief is maintained by delusions and inertia (laziness and cowardliness) of thought. Once invested in a position, a real human has a decision to make: to continue seeking truth (usually a greater truth) by challenging their own belief and seeing if it can survive the challenge or ... to scurry around or hunker down, like a cockroach awaiting more cover of darkness.

To not make a comment on this thread is okay. To openly engage the author is also okay.

But to attempt to BURY a thread just because your belief and identity with that belief is threatened?

What kind of man would do that?

Go ahead. Vote me down. Vote down the thread. Reveal yourself to yourself.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

Yup. They are down-voting you...

Welcome to the club. I read the "fantasies" (as you put it) here and make a comment that disagrees with them and they bash and down-vote me. It's interesting how they act when you post something contrary to the "evil government blew up the buildings!" fantasy...

By the way, I love the "stoned from a distance" line. That was good. ;-)

I'm guessing your behavior has a lot to do with your downvotes.

It seems you've made it your primary purpose in this thread to be obnoxious and insulting, rather than to actually partake in the discussion.

So you don't get to holler "foul" over people downvoting you.

At least tan was big enough to apologize below.

HAH!

I'm not apologizing for disagreeing with a group of people just because they get angry and start bashing me for daring to disagree.

Insulting? Are you blind? My most recent posts contain some MILD insults but they only began after the zombies came out and starting using words like "ignorant" and "lazy" and asking stupid questions like "But you believe some cave dwelling, lap dance craving bozos
planned and executed it?". And, I would be willing to bet money that when Squid wakes up and checks my replies to him, his next post will be TOTALLY bent (LOL LOL).

The number of down-votes are not what drives my replies/posts. No, it's the angry reaction to my dissention – the way that some of you get SO freakin’ shaken up for someone DARING to disagree.

My ORIGINAL purpose was to make a statement (just like everyone
else). My NEW purpose is to mock you dorks because of the way that some of you acted when I posted MY thoughts.

If you find my posts "obnoxious", I suggest that you stop reading them and/or grow up. Either way, I SURELY will not apologize to you goof-balls...

Nobody asked you to apologize for disagreeing.

You came in swinging with your complaints about people spending so much time on this subject and about how it bothers you so much that the Daily Paul and the liberty movement are distracted by people posting on this subject...while you proceeded to that which you complained about.

If you are unhappy about that, maybe you should take your own advice and stop reading these threads if they bother you so much.

Instead, you have continued on and are acting like a jerk and then complaining about your downvotes you are receiving.

You reaped what you sowed. *shrug*

Difficulty comprehending what you read?

I'm not complaining about the down-votes. I mearly pointed out how anyone that disagrees is down-voted. There is a bit of a difference.

Being a jerk? How? By defending my position/posts? Maybe if I said "aw shucks - OK everybody, I see the light, you are obviously all correct. I don't know what I was thinking" everyone would up-vote it and think that I am not being an "obnoxious jerk"? Well, I don't suppose that's going to happen so I guess I'm just a jerk.

would you like to discuss the subject with me wise guy?

and before you have to go and look up what HVAC is, I will warn you I do commercial industrial refrigeration service work for a living.

NIST said it was due to "thermal expansion" would you like for me to explain what that is for you? or would you prefer superheat or combustion as topics?

Oh, and, by the way

I don't know why you think that working on refrigeration makes you a rocket scientist but, I hate to break it to you, it does NOT take a genius to figure out that thermal expansion relates to shit expanding when it gets hot (metal for example). Hellooo McFly, that is pretty common knowledge. The fucking metal got hot (fire tends to warm shit up) and it expanded.

about thermal expansion.

a device that is common in my business is a "thermal expansion valve" or a TXV or TEV if you prefer. McFly.

it does not regulate pressure, it regulates superheat.

Oh brother

I have spent the weekend watching documentaries and youtube videos and reading a bunch of material provided by both sides of the debate. At times, I was swayed to think that a controlled demolition was possible but, now, after hours of information, I simply believe that the planes caused ALL of the buildings to be destroyed.

You can try to belittle me. You can try to mock me. You can say that I am ignorant. You can talk down to me with terms like "wise guy" and it will not change the fact that I think that you are all full of shit and need t get over it.

difficulty comprehending what you read?

you were the one picking a fight. not me.

sharkhearted's picture

"Substantial"? Here are THREE substantial DOCUMENTARIES.

Pop some popcorn, dim the lights, put your headphones on (music is good) and watch them in this order...if you dare:

1. 9-11 EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE. EXPERTS SPEAK OUT

http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138/

2. HYPOTHESIS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cfjYUHF8UE&feature=player_em...

3. LOOSE CHANGE: AN AMERICAN COUP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a58Zfu9kBb0

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Three very substantial videos?

You're gonna have to help me out here, because all I see in the original part of his OP are the videos of:

1) the penthouse collapse (which is support for the OPPOSITE of his conclusion and FOR demolition)

2) a NIST model simulation. (lol)

3) the interview with Scheuerman and Roberts where they seem to be in denial that serious explosions took place (which is contrary to other evidences)

They must not be aware of this where firefighters are on the phone and very, very loud explosion takes place and another firefighter runs up telling them "seven's exploding!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw&feature=related

They must not be aware of Barry Jennings account of the explosion PRIOR to the twin towers collapsing, that forced him and Hess from the sixth floor back up to the eighth floor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NttM3oUrNmE

They must not be aware of the countdown heard right before explosions and the collapse of wtc7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKtU01qcZBM

Not regarding wtc7 specifically, but since they're making mockery of the idea of demolition, they must not be aware of the active thermitic material that was found in the wtc dust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk8jnqQaujY

But I digress. Anyway, all I see in the original part of the OP are those three videos I listed. Where are the ~substantial~ ones to which you refer?

The down votes don't bury a thread

Commenting on a thread moves it to the top of the "recent comments" area. I think the down votes essentially say "we disagree w/ the premise".

For what it's worth, I commented on the points that the OP made but didn't get a response back. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the matter. I have my own opinion but I am open-minded to hearing others.

if you are correct, then I apologize

I seem to be doing a lot of that on this board!

I actually was coming back to edit my post and remove some of the inflammatory language, which was unnecessary and mainly just makes me look bad, but it doesn't look like I can do that now. :-{

Thank you for letting me know that the down votes down suppress the post. So it is only a lack of new comments which moves the a new thread higher or lower?

BTW, for what it is worth, I am still willing to look at new perspectives on the WTC 7 building. I have the same problem with people who won't look at one side of an argument as I do with people who won't look at another. I don't have a problem with people who finally decide they don't care enough to continue putting time and energy into a debate (that the investment isn't worth the possibility of new learning) as there are always more things to learn and do than there is time to learn and do them. (My argument about the Illuminati, UFOs, etc. ... the reality or unreality is likely unprovable but is substantially irrelevant in my bigger picture. But the time investment in engaging further is real enough and has a real cost ... it costs me valuable time in promoting the future I would LIKE to create for myself and others).

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

Perfectly Understandable

To be honest, I'm not sure if down votes do suppress posts in any way but this thread has a lot of negative votes (in the 90's if I remember correctly) and yet there are over 9 pages worth of comments. In other words, people *are* discussing it (and thus, it's *not* being suppressed).

Your point about investing time in unprovable things rather than doing things that you want to do is a legitimate one by the way. I think it's a personal decision where each person has to decide how much they value "trying to understand how the world really works" vs "doing the things they would've done with that time otherwise". Everyone has to strike their own balance.

I like that you keep an open mind about the whole thing by the way. To me that's the only thing that makes sense because if you're confident in your position then you should be willing to hear alternative views. Also it would be inaccurate for someone to call themselves a "truther" if they were obstinate and stuck in a single point of view. If new evidence came out that show something contrary to someone's prior opinion then they should be open-minded to that. Or else they're not a "truther" but rather a biased observer.

The "no planes" theory

I have to admit that I have a very hard time believing that there were no planes though I am 100% willing to listen to counter-points (and I encourage them!)

My reasoning is this:
New York City has way too many people. If there were explosions but no planes, wouldn't there be an enormous number of people who witnessed the events of that day saying that they didn't see a plane? Also, think about how many people's attention was focused on the towers after the first plane hit. If there were simply an explosion (with no plane) in the other tower, wouldn't it have *ensured* that large numbers of people would say "explosion but no plane"? Basically it seems to me like it would be an insanely risky chance to take by the plotters (assuming it was a false flag operation).

For what it's worth, I could see having no planes by the Pentagon since (from what I can see on the videos) it seems like it's a much less populated area.

sharkhearted's picture

NIST and the fraudulent "simulation" of WTC7 "collapse"

Here is a great independent technical discussion blowing wide open the error-ridden taxpayer-funded Gross/MacAlister (NIST) "analysis".

You just cant stop the truth. This will continue to unravel...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/Brookman-Vol-33...

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Thanks for taking the time to compile this entry with LINKS

The links are great and you've convinced me to change my position.

That is what rational people do in the face of new evidence.

BTW, do I believe the government wasn't, in some way, complicit in the 911 disaster? No - I didn't say that. The fingerprint of bureaucratic bungling and self serving fiefdoms -- hallmarks of "government" -- are all over 911 (how did the Trade Center buildings bypass "code" requirements, again?). The fingerprints of government complicity all over pretty near everything of large scale in this country. I "believe" our government is corrupt to the core, self serving, murderous, and administered - mostly - by incompetents, criminals, and bureaucratic SNAFUs. I believe government is capable of anything.

But I am willing to let go of my "preponderance of the evidence" position that WTC 7 was demolished. I'm even willing to let go of putting any more energy into the 911 issue in general - it is mostly a distraction, anyway.

I think dwelling and talking on things such as 911, Illuminati, etc. cost the liberty movement far more than they gain us ... in way of energy, credibility and, ultimately, in adherents. Someone - it may have been Carl Sagan - said (in the context of science) "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" (sort of an inversion of the infamous truism that "the simplest explanation is usually correct". But even that is not it.

The main point? SPECIFIC EVENTS AND, ESPECIALLY, THEIR CAUSALITY DON'T MUCH MATTER TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT. We should learn a bit about them and move on. We should take the position of rationality, big picture logic, and morality. We are in this for the long run and there is no end point. Was The Fed created by a criminal conspiracy? It sure seems that way. Does that really matter after 100 years? No: the damning logical and moral evidence against The Fed and centralized banking/ fiat money stands on its own.

Correspondingly, an INDIVIDUAL's right to their liberty is NOT changed by "belief" and -- it doesn't matter how many people believe or disbelieve in an individual's liberty. Socialism may affect an individual's liberty but it doesn't have any relevance to the indivdual's moral and commonsensical rights to freedom and self determination.

More abstractly, but also rationally, history and logic (combined with basic knowledge of how individuals and social herds act) similarly speak to the end result to increasing versus decreasing freedom. Socialism chills; the only thing it ever has or ever could encourage is freeloading/ corruption. Socialism may be a great system for ants but it is antithetical to human nature ... both simple logic and the evidence of history are incontrovertible (which won't will never convince illogical and corrupt people ... so don't waste your energy).

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

sharkhearted's picture

No. THIS is what rational people do in the face of new evidence.

I challenge you to be "rational", and watch all of this NEW EVIDENCE.

If, after watching this (see the link below) and taking it in, you can still leave the argument thinking that controlled demolition was NOT USED, then I don't know what to tell you.

As far as getting to the bottom of the events of 9-11 (by undertaking a new INDEPENDENT investigation with subpoena and prosecutory power), it is not only the right of the American people to do so, it is our moral obligation to do so.

And this WILL happen, in our lifetimes, I can promise you that.

You say your are willing to "let go of putting any more energy into the 9-11 issue in general - it is mostly a distraction, anyway."

THREE THOUSAND innocent people and first responders died on that day, and almost TWICE that number of our young military have been killed since that day, and HUNDREDS of thousands of family members are grieving because of lost 9-11 victims and soldiers never to return home, because of that day....and you call this a "DISTRACTION"?

We have the largest mass murder in United States history, that STILL sits mostly unsolved, and you are willing to "let go putting any more energy into the 9-11 issue??

WTF?

IF 11 years had gone by and you had a child or family member that was murdered, which was unsolved, or the perpetrator was not caught, I doubt very seriously you would be as non-chalant.

Not to worry, we will proceed with or without you. Justice will be served...someday. WATCH:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

some may say there is no such thing as bad press

say what you want, just keep the conversation going ; )

sharkhearted's picture

The Sensible Doubt - Excellent 9-11 Mini-Documentary shown here.

Only 20 minutes long. It is in Danish, but with subtitles.

Watch with headphones if you can as the music is great.

Interesting to hear all of these (obviously very bright and intuitive) Danes calling into question the official government-sponsored story of the events of 9-11, and how the answers to the questions have been staring us in the face.

When historical accounts far in the future properly record the events of our era of the 20th and early 21st century, those future historians will have to note that first, during this era, wars were started because of complete lies or either "standing down" to let the "enemy" have its way, and, second, governments and their state-run media (specifically, and especially the United States!) used mass brainwashing techniques to propagate their lies, deception, and malice.

Watch "The Sensible Doubt" here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qq3wP..


~Chris
Norfolk, VA

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Again...

"No Plane Hit WTC7" Conspiracy continues......it should have not collaspe within its footprint!

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

And on it goes...

Many of us believe that government bureaucracy begets incompetence and failure. It is widely held that the federal government employs those that would otherwise not be highly employable. It is understood that the average government worker is a lazy, inept blood sucker. Yea? Do we all agree with this basic premise? Don’t get me wrong, I understand that there are exceptions to the rule. The federal government accidentally hires (and keeps) a small percentage of smart, hard working people. However, the vast majority of government workers simply lack the ingredients for success.

Why am I talking about this? For an organization wishing to carry off such a massive operation such as destroying three buildings, killing thousands of people, and plunging the world into WWIII, it would require that everyone involved be of the highest caliber of intelligence, dedication, and loyalty to the “cause” and the operation. If would take hundreds (if not thousands) of people working in tight tangent. There would be so many moving parts to the operation to control that even a group of inhumanly intelligent people would have to study every possible scenario and come up with a massive list of contingencies.

Not one screw up? Not one leak? Not one dropped ball? The perfect execution of such a massive operation? Do we really think the government capable of success with even the smallest projects let alone one as huge as this would be?

Do I think that government is capable of hatching a plan like this? Are they really that evil? Yes and yes. Do I think that they could pull it off? No.

Sure, the government can lie and say that the North Vietnamese shot at a ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. That’s an easy lie to pull past the average idiot. Yea, they can stir up emotions when they deliberately get a passenger ship sunk (The Lusitania). And, yea, they might even be able to shoot a president and pull it off. But, come on, taking down three buildings with controlled demolitions? Getting the explosives in place (and wired properly) without any witnesses and then getting two passenger jets to slam into the buildings. And, there’s so much more that would have to be planned and executed to control the whole thing. Really?

I am so very tired of you people spending so much time on this subject. I cannot begin to express how much it bothers me that the Daily Paul and the liberty movement in general is distracted by those of you that constantly post on this subject and relentlessly abuse those of us that take the time to disagree with you or simply tell you how old all of this is getting...