I really need some docos to brush up on this. I used to think it was just a silly theory but it makes sense...
Open for any and all docos if people are willing :)
If i remember correctly it had something to do with the enron scandal and all the case info was destroyed, sure there were some other criminal cases that were swept up by that demolition too.
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building
Look up Institute of Northern Engineering. This is the most recent study that i know of. I think most think the NIST stuff is just silly. As far as sound, who knows what kind of explosives we have quietly developed. I don't know how else you get "the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building". I don't know how they took down these buildings, but I know the BS story the fake news and NIST has been peddling is just that. BS. It ranks up there with the covid hoax.
Dude, believe what you want. I thought this forum was for people who have finally realized what our govt. has been up to for decades. In 2001, and for a few years beyond, I believed, what the MSM was selling. Now, watching those towers fall, and thinking it is just a coincidence they all fell just like a controlled demolition, I have no words. Please, have the last word, but I will not respond any more to something that all can see with their own two eyes.
Even if it didn't have explosives I don't see how that building would be able to fall, let alone, perfectly like that. That building was not that beat up at all from looking at it.
And if you think it was damaged by debris from the other towers, why did hundreds of people on the ground not get killed from said falling debris on the ground?
Hi Shill. Chiming in here. I was on Broadway in front of City Hall on 9/11 along with thousands others, staring up at towers 1 and 2 with plumes of smoke coming out from the damaged sections of the buildings. I can't say for certain that I heard anything when Building 7 fell, but about 20 minutes before the south tower fell, a loud explosion like sound rumbled and echoed through the street which sent every single person into a panic and every single person turned and ran at the same time. Old ladies were knocked down and trampled by people fearing for their lives. about 20 minutes later the South tower fell. I am certain something went off in those buildings and it would not surprise me if the same is true for tower 7. Hell of a sight for an 18 year old.
One thing for you is sure tho, silverstein and friends would be proud. they don't even need to pay shills like you to try and sow doubt amongst truth seekers. Never change, this way your life will continue to be meaningless.
OK what 'holes' are in the ae911 videos? be specific.
I'm well versed on 9/11 most angles, and especially with the adherents of the official report and their tactics.
wtc7 is a smoking gun for demolition. If you're doubting this, especially trying to eqwuate flat earthers to the solid scientific evidence pointing to likelyhood of controlled demolition, this is right on par with what i've dealt with before.
Do you see the building with the word 'alamy' on it, above the WTC 1 & 2 derbis? That and the building to the right are severely damaged but still stood. Why did the building right above it collapse neatly into its own footprint, (wtc7) and the building to the left and right of it remain standing?
The fact is, WT7 is the smoking gun for controlled demolition, and even if it had been damaged by falling debris, it would not have fallen straight down into its own footprint because the support furthest away from the collapse couldn't have been weakened in such a way that it would fall straight down like a controlled demolition.
Let me rephrase it:
How is it logical to think WTC7 fell due to damage from WTC1/2, when the supports along barclay street of WTC7 wouldn't have been impacted?
How do you logically get a building falling straight down with supports still in place?
At any rate, the Univertity of Alaska Fairbanks has done some great research on wtc7 and they have indicated the claimed cause (fire) did not cause the collapse. https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
You said there were 'holes' in the ae911 videos. Can you be specific about the 'holes' in this video: 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts speak out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg ? It's an hour, and as a skeptic i'm sure you have either already watched it, or will find it of great interest if you haven't. I'm very interested in what holes are in this video. Or if time is an issue, more specifically the section surrounding WTC7: https://youtu.be/Ddz2mw2vaEg?t=340 to https://youtu.be/Ddz2mw2vaEg?t=470 (2 minutes and 10 seconds)
Can you explain what you think happened to WTC7 on 9/11, through all of your years of study?
Ranting on about the audio is weak too, because it's a common red-herring weaker people used years ago. if you really like audio, there's analysts years ago who examined the audio tracks and found noticeable muting in various tracks from msm, you should look for them.
No one gives a shit about the fake stuff. Like you said, lets focus on the truth and what we can prove. So saying only that demolition explosives were not used, nor was there any evidence of explosives found or firing system infrastucture found flies in the face of truth from evidence that we do have, because there's evidence of explosives!
I think you're on the right track that it was planned and allowed to happen. As for who did it, i can't say, i'm in agreement with the A&E 9/11 investigators, that it needs more investigation because the official report is bunk. The leading theory right now is explosives of some form, it's quite difficult to deny in light of all available evidence.
Anyway i'm done, but it might be good to let go of your assumptions, and open up to some new theories.
You were provided source of explosives many times with the a&e 9/11 explosive evidence video, but you don't want to get around to viewing it and assert no source was given for it. why is that?
And they announced it had fallen BEFORE it fell.
There is also the footage of Larry Silverstein saying "They made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse". - https://www.bitchute.com/video/nLZ59LWnwK0/
https://youtu.be/677i43QfYpQ sure did !
😜 We can't seem to account for 2.3 Trillion year 2001 dollars 😜
"plane" hits pentagon and destroys section containing files related to investigation into where missing 2.3 trillion went.
oops.
vOv
Is that what happened?
A building does not fall straight down in free fall unless there is nothing left to support it.
Fact checked…. FALSE - CNN
I see one of Larry Silverstein's assistant showed up to downvote all the posts here.
Remember that one plane that crashed in a field ? It was meant for this building and never got there. The one fuck up that opened so many eyes.
problem with that one was there was no debris. Even if it went straight down to the ground there would have been more than what was shown there.
Hmm. That is true. Maybe they meant for one of the trade center towers to fall sideways and crash into WTC 7.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/NggpbtTTq0vX/
You're fake, child raping fed ass fucking jew
Woah!
9/11 was an inside job.
I really need some docos to brush up on this. I used to think it was just a silly theory but it makes sense... Open for any and all docos if people are willing :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nyogTsrsgI
14 mins of wtc7 focus
One of the greatest angsts of this time I have is HOW STUPID they think we are, and have been, for so long.
It PISSES me OFF!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_7_World_Trade_Center_(1987%E2%80%932001) Notice anything noteworthy within the list of tenants?
Say it was a controlled demo, why drop that building? What was special about?
If i remember correctly it had something to do with the enron scandal and all the case info was destroyed, sure there were some other criminal cases that were swept up by that demolition too.
WTC-7 won't go away.
Hurricane Erin right off the coast near NY city that day. Moved east after the event. Nearly zero media coverage. Hmm.
Is that how you think damaged buildings fall?
It's how a lot of us watched it
I don't think it was silent.
I've seen videos of interviews with fireman who attested to hearing a series of explosions just prior to the collapse of building 7.
If no a controlled demolition, what? What brought those buildings down? Truly want to know your opinion
It wasn't just the bbc who pre-announced the collapse of wtc7
https://rumble.com/v13bm20-911-fox-news-5-reports-wtc-7-had-collapsed-then-moments-later-watched-it-li.html
Plus, this video shows what appears to be windows blowing out just before the collapse..
https://rumble.com/v13br2a-911-wtc-7-collapse-unreleased-footage.html
There is an interview out there of a man (building owner of 7?) who said something like 'we decided to pull it'.
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building
Look up Institute of Northern Engineering. This is the most recent study that i know of. I think most think the NIST stuff is just silly. As far as sound, who knows what kind of explosives we have quietly developed. I don't know how else you get "the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building". I don't know how they took down these buildings, but I know the BS story the fake news and NIST has been peddling is just that. BS. It ranks up there with the covid hoax.
Dude, believe what you want. I thought this forum was for people who have finally realized what our govt. has been up to for decades. In 2001, and for a few years beyond, I believed, what the MSM was selling. Now, watching those towers fall, and thinking it is just a coincidence they all fell just like a controlled demolition, I have no words. Please, have the last word, but I will not respond any more to something that all can see with their own two eyes.
Even if it didn't have explosives I don't see how that building would be able to fall, let alone, perfectly like that. That building was not that beat up at all from looking at it. And if you think it was damaged by debris from the other towers, why did hundreds of people on the ground not get killed from said falling debris on the ground?
Hi Shill. Chiming in here. I was on Broadway in front of City Hall on 9/11 along with thousands others, staring up at towers 1 and 2 with plumes of smoke coming out from the damaged sections of the buildings. I can't say for certain that I heard anything when Building 7 fell, but about 20 minutes before the south tower fell, a loud explosion like sound rumbled and echoed through the street which sent every single person into a panic and every single person turned and ran at the same time. Old ladies were knocked down and trampled by people fearing for their lives. about 20 minutes later the South tower fell. I am certain something went off in those buildings and it would not surprise me if the same is true for tower 7. Hell of a sight for an 18 year old.
One thing for you is sure tho, silverstein and friends would be proud. they don't even need to pay shills like you to try and sow doubt amongst truth seekers. Never change, this way your life will continue to be meaningless.
I heard speculation of that explosion was the initial charges separating the foundation from the bedrock
haven't you seen the Architects and engineers 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts speak out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
I concur with u/americanjerky/ you come across like i shill. I've dealt with many people like you in the time after 9/11.
OK what 'holes' are in the ae911 videos? be specific.
I'm well versed on 9/11 most angles, and especially with the adherents of the official report and their tactics.
wtc7 is a smoking gun for demolition. If you're doubting this, especially trying to eqwuate flat earthers to the solid scientific evidence pointing to likelyhood of controlled demolition, this is right on par with what i've dealt with before.
Take a look at this photo:
https://c7.alamy.com/comp/CWB8XY/world-trade-center-aerial-photograph-of-the-world-trade-center-taken-CWB8XY.jpg
Do you see the building with the word 'alamy' on it, above the WTC 1 & 2 derbis? That and the building to the right are severely damaged but still stood. Why did the building right above it collapse neatly into its own footprint, (wtc7) and the building to the left and right of it remain standing?
The fact is, WT7 is the smoking gun for controlled demolition, and even if it had been damaged by falling debris, it would not have fallen straight down into its own footprint because the support furthest away from the collapse couldn't have been weakened in such a way that it would fall straight down like a controlled demolition.
Let me rephrase it: How is it logical to think WTC7 fell due to damage from WTC1/2, when the supports along barclay street of WTC7 wouldn't have been impacted?
How do you logically get a building falling straight down with supports still in place?
At any rate, the Univertity of Alaska Fairbanks has done some great research on wtc7 and they have indicated the claimed cause (fire) did not cause the collapse. https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
That's a better picture. But why aren't you answering the question and deflecting? this is shilling behaviour.
see: https://greatawakening.win/p/15IrBTtPqz/x/c/4Ob8JwLyjpo
WTC7 fell into its footprint. Can't you see from the picture you posted? I know you're metabunk trash now.
can't you answer the question you were initially asked?
I examined your history, i see now, you consider the troll hive metabunk to be legit source. You talk just like them on this topic too.
metabunk, which you consider to be a source on this topic. you act just like them.
Relax, i came in to this thread to probe based on a report. I'm not talking about a picture, but rather stuff like:
https://greatawakening.win/p/15HIcrTAgz/x/c/4OVzrj8leQT
https://greatawakening.win/p/15HIcrTAgz/x/c/4OVzrj4Cgy5
https://greatawakening.win/p/15HIcrTAgz/x/c/4OVzrj0mxZi
https://greatawakening.win/p/15HIcrTAgz/x/c/4OVzrnhRvBm
^ that is just a small sample. Do you trust metabunk? Haven't you yet discovered that's a hive of trolls to push the narrative of MSM yet?
Can't you respond to this:
Do you trust metabunk? Haven't you yet discovered that's a hive of trolls to push the narrative of MSM yet?
Last question on this topic:
You said there were 'holes' in the ae911 videos. Can you be specific about the 'holes' in this video: 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts speak out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg ? It's an hour, and as a skeptic i'm sure you have either already watched it, or will find it of great interest if you haven't. I'm very interested in what holes are in this video. Or if time is an issue, more specifically the section surrounding WTC7: https://youtu.be/Ddz2mw2vaEg?t=340 to https://youtu.be/Ddz2mw2vaEg?t=470 (2 minutes and 10 seconds)
Can you explain what you think happened to WTC7 on 9/11, through all of your years of study?
You're discussing this topic dishonestly, bringing in the personal digs is a terrible angles of discussion, very weak.
Clearly you have a lot more to dig on this topic, especially if 30+ year demolition experts can look at wtc7 and say conclusively it was a demolition. Additionally ignoring many experts in the field stating there is evidence for explosives.
Ranting on about the audio is weak too, because it's a common red-herring weaker people used years ago. if you really like audio, there's analysts years ago who examined the audio tracks and found noticeable muting in various tracks from msm, you should look for them.
No one gives a shit about the fake stuff. Like you said, lets focus on the truth and what we can prove. So saying only that demolition explosives were not used, nor was there any evidence of explosives found or firing system infrastucture found flies in the face of truth from evidence that we do have, because there's evidence of explosives!
I think you're on the right track that it was planned and allowed to happen. As for who did it, i can't say, i'm in agreement with the A&E 9/11 investigators, that it needs more investigation because the official report is bunk. The leading theory right now is explosives of some form, it's quite difficult to deny in light of all available evidence.
Anyway i'm done, but it might be good to let go of your assumptions, and open up to some new theories.
You were provided source of explosives many times with the a&e 9/11 explosive evidence video, but you don't want to get around to viewing it and assert no source was given for it. why is that?