World Trade Center Building 7 - controlled demolition
Posted by: CFMF on 03 June 2014
This report confirms that WTC Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, contrary to the US government's official claim that it was brought down by fire...
BBM
I don't know that the specific report you refer to proves anything.
That said, my personal belief is that controlled demolition played a significant role in the events of 9/11, and that the facts of what really happened that day will never come to light.
(Note that whereas the Consensus Panel uses a scientific methodology to peer-reviewits work, the NIST report was not peer-reviewed.)
Any panel/report that starts off by knocking the "opposition" entitles me to disregard it, without bothering to read it.
This report confirms that WTC Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
Nope, not for me, unconvinced.
Conspiracy nut jobs never sleep....
This report confirms that WTC Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
Nope, not for me, unconvinced.
Well I was watching the live TV coverage of 9-11 and I distinctly remember a very odd comment by the NYC mayor. During a live interview on national television he said: "We decided to bring it (building 7) down" I found that statement to be quite strange and bit disturbing. I am not a conspiracy theorist but...
Hey Don, so if the NIST report actually was not peer reviewed, and the writer of this article merely mentions that fact, then the whole article is bogus?
To discount an article for stating a fact is a strange position to take, don't you think?
BBM
About a year ago I wasted a few evenings watching a stupid film that Sniper "recommended" - all about Bldg 7 and the Twin Towers. One "expert" after another. It was tedious, but I persevered just to be polite. What a lod of rubish. And now you seem to want people to believe this as well ?
No, I don't want anybody to believe anything. You "persevered" with the film, yet you casually dismissed an article without even reading it, because it correctly made the claime that the NIST report was not peer reviewed.
You already seem to have your mind made up regarding this matter, even in the face of new information. That's not what I call critical thinking; indeed you seem rather closed minded.
If you believe the official story regarding WTC Building 7, in that a mere fire brought down a steel reinforced structure, at free fall speed no less, then good for you.
BBM
Hundreds of generals, colonels and other high ranking officers from the US Army, Air Force and Intelligence services say the official report is rubbish. They are all retired of course. Any ideas why?
Don did not offer any rebuttal of the evidence presented in the 'tedious' film as I recall.
It is, of course, jolly easy to talk about 'conspiracy theory nut jobs' and faked lunar landings looking to get a cheap laugh, much easier than using your brain.
Sniper,
Exactly. Makes people look like suckers though, doesn't it? I guess it's the only way they can sleep at night.
BBM
Ok, i can see why certain conspiracy theories exist (faked moon landing etc) but this one i'm having a hard time working out why would anyone bother. Whats the point of the demo. and why bother to cover it up?
Ok, i can see why certain conspiracy theories exist (faked moon landing etc) but this one i'm having a hard time working out why would anyone bother. Whats the point of the demo. and why bother to cover it up?
Why has no-one who was involved with setting the charges come forward out of conscience to verify the allegations? Did no-one see a bunch of people setting up explosives in the busy building during the days leading up to the alleged fabricated incident? Did no janitor or building maintenance employee notice the shaped charges attached to columns in the basement, connect by detonating cord? Where they all paid off? NSA/CIA?Black-ops plants? Suffer mysterious accidents?
Come on guys. Seriously?
"Peer Review"
Get a big bunch of "believers". Split then into two groups. Get one group to write the story. Get the other group to read it. Bingo. Conspiracy theory + "Peer Review". 
Now, when the consipracy theorists have had this document peer reviewed by the NIST, then I will do a bit more than browse through it.
Ok, i can see why certain conspiracy theories exist (faked moon landing etc) but this one i'm having a hard time working out why would anyone bother. Whats the point of the demo. and why bother to cover it up?
Why has no-one who was involved with setting the charges come forward out of conscience to verify the allegations? Did no-one see a bunch of people setting up explosives in the busy building during the days leading up to the alleged fabricated incident? Did no janitor or building maintenance employee notice the shaped charges attached to columns in the basement, connect by detonating cord? Where they all paid off? NSA/CIA?Black-ops plants? Suffer mysterious accidents?
Come on guys. Seriously?
+1
.......oh! yes, I did read about their scientific methodology of Delphi peer review..........yawn !!
Seriously, Fred Dibnah himself was reported to have been hanging around a few days prior to the awefull events on 9/11. Draw your own conclusions.
...............and you still consider this was a "controlled" demolition ?...........
No, I don't want anybody to believe anything. You "persevered" with the film, yet you casually dismissed an article without even reading it, because it correctly made the claime that the NIST report was not peer reviewed.
You already seem to have your mind made up regarding this matter, even in the face of new information. That's not what I call critical thinking; indeed you seem rather closed minded.
If you believe the official story regarding WTC Building 7, in that a mere fire brought down a steel reinforced structure, at free fall speed no less, then good for you.
BBM
I seem to remember that the World trade centre consisted of two tall buildings with lift shafts and stairwells,a mere fire fuelled by aviation fuel would pull air up the lift shafts and stairwells that would raise the temperature to that of a blast furnace and that melts steel and destroys a lot of other materials,once the upper parts of the buildings started to fall due to melted steel and other material damage nothing could stop it
No, I don't want anybody to believe anything. You "persevered" with the film, yet you casually dismissed an article without even reading it, because it correctly made the claime that the NIST report was not peer reviewed.
You already seem to have your mind made up regarding this matter, even in the face of new information. That's not what I call critical thinking; indeed you seem rather closed minded.
If you believe the official story regarding WTC Building 7, in that a mere fire brought down a steel reinforced structure, at free fall speed no less, then good for you.
BBM
I seem to remember that the World trade centre consisted of two tall buildings with lift shafts and stairwells,a mere fire fuelled by aviation fuel would pull air up the lift shafts and stairwells that would raise the temperature to that of a blast furnace and that melts steel and destroys a lot of other materials,once the upper parts of the buildings started to fall due to melted steel and other material damage nothing could stop it
John,
WTC Building No 7 was the third building that collapsed that day. It wasn't hit by an aeroplane, but it caught fire and collapsed.
A large group of people have considered the possibility that the collapse of building No 7 was a "controlled" demolition, despite statements to the contrary by the "authorities"
You can always trust the BBC to report the news accurately.
In this first video, Jane Standley reports on the collapse of WTC Building 7, about 20 minutes BEFORE the building actually fell. The building can be seen behind her just slightly to the left side of her head...
BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell - YouTube
And here is the exact same video, this time in an enhanced format, that shows where WTC Building 7 is located on the screen. Mysteriously, the audio/video feed is suddenly "lost"...
ENHANCED VERSION: News Reports WTC7 Fell Before It Happens! - YouTube
Enjoy,
BBM
Rolling news?
Mistakes happen.
I would not recognise WTC 7 from many buildings in NY and clearly no person in the BBC Studio did either. But that does not make for a conspiracy. The area had been cleared except for emergency services, and one can see that a report given by the BBC was nothing more than what had been told the BBC by those [emergency services] actually on the site.
Cock-up, not conspiracy ... IMHO.
ATB from George
Oh no, not you too.
So how does some emergency worker just happen to contact the BBC and tell them that WTC 7 has collapsed, when the building is still standing? And then 20 minutes later, as if by sheer coincidence, WTC 7, of all buildings, just happens to collapse. Do you know what the odds are on that happening?
It's like I call the BBC and tell them that the London Bridge has fallen down, and then by sheer coincidence, 20 minutes later it does.
Come on, get with the program. You are a bit smarter than that!
I am not going to respond to any more of your inane comments, especially after your performance on some other recent threads. You should be ashamed of yourself, George. Grow up FFS!
BBM
It's like I call the BBC and tell them that the London Bridge has fallen down, and then by sheer coincidence, 20 minutes later it does.
But your analogy does not include the two planes having crashed into adjacent structures in Lake Havasu City. And most people would report it as still standing even if it did come down, as they don't know where it is. Human error. And no-one has yet explained the 'why' of this particular conspiracy theory....
Oh no, not you too.
So how does some emergency worker just happen to contact the BBC and tell them that WTC 7 has collapsed, when the building is still standing? And then 20 minutes later, as if by sheer coincidence, WTC 7, of all buildings, just happens to collapse. Do you know what the odds are on that happening?
It's like I call the BBC and tell them that the London Bridge has fallen down, and then by sheer coincidence, 20 minutes later it does.
Come on, get with the program. You are a bit smarter than that!
I am not going to respond to any more of your inane comments, especially after your performance on some other recent threads. You should be ashamed of yourself, George. Grow up FFS!
BBM
What a very childish post. If you want to believe that it is a conspiracy, then do so and be a happy.
ATB from George
I suppose its also coincidence that nobody noticed thousands of holes being drilled, miles of det cord, cases of tnt lying around. Controlled demolition on that scale does not just 'happen' it takes months and months of very noticeable work.
I've only just glanced at this thread but can somebody please explain how, within a short time of the planes hitting the twin towers, it would be possible to plan, organise, resource and enact a controlled demolition of a building in the vicinity. And how could that be concealed? And why?
Bruce