9/11 Fourteen Years Later

[TESLAMotors]

There was a lot of dust, but not everything turned into dust. They had power equipment and dump trucks for months removing steel, etc.

In a nutshell, this is what happened to WTC 7:

1. WTC 7 was also a steel building, not reinforced concrete, with a unique design.
2. The twin towers were 1,300 feet high or more. Parts of these buildings rained down on other buildings, like WTC 7, which was only 350 feet away.
3. There were massive fires in Building 7. Even that white-shirted reporter in one of your videos above said many buildings were on fire and perhaps in danger of collapse.
4. The firefighters figured out from looking at the holes and fires of building 7, including the bulge on one side, that it was unsafe to enter and couldn't be saved, citing a structural integrity that seemed to be failing, and probably going to collapse.

Check out this link for a detailed explanation with various videos. It begins the explanation, but digresses into a long explanation of debunking the "pull" conspiracy theory, so go to about half way down and then it will resume its explanation on the mechanics of the Building 7 collapse, including diesel generators which also caught fire and exacerbated the damage.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Lastly, in ANY real controlled-demolition, you see FLASHES for the explosions of the multiple charges. We don't see that in WTC 7 OR the Twin Towers.

WTC 7 seems to come down without any visible explosions, just from structural failure weakened by both fires AND damage from the collision of heavy pieces from the North Tower. Key supporting trusses were damaged and created a sequence of collapse.

GPIDEAL, it's nice to see your true colours come out, this pretending that you're perplexed by WTC 7. To make it come off as though it really happened because of these 2 planes that hit the buildings and #7 just succumbed to debris and random fires.
You're so transparent, but nice try. lol

The WTC #7 w may have been 350 ft away - as though this is supposed to make a difference in the debate, however, Verizon looks to be the exact same distance away as well.
...but NOTHING happened to it.
The debris falling in a linear fashion directly to WTC #7 is curious isn't it?
Even WTC # 6 didn't collapse and faired much, much better and it was RIGHT NEXT to WTC 1
I'll provide you a video here.

Do these buildings look similar to you in how they collapse?
It's a YES or NO type answer, if you could humour me here.

 

[TESLAMotors]

Obviously you haven't watched or listened to the narrator. That's fine.

fuji, basket, gp not in that order.

 

[GPIDEAL]

GPIDEAL, it's nice to see your true colours come out, this pretending that you're perplexed by WTC 7. To make it come off as though it really happened because of these 2 planes that hit the buildings and #7 just succumbed to debris and random fires.
You're so transparent, but nice try. lol

The WTC #7 w may have been 350 ft away - as though this is supposed to make a difference in the debate, however, Verizon looks to be the exact same distance away as well.
...but NOTHING happened to it.
The debris falling in a linear fashion directly to WTC #7 is curious isn't it?
Even WTC # 6 didn't collapse and faired much, much better and it was RIGHT NEXT to WTC 1
I'll provide you a video here.

Do these buildings look similar to you in how they collapse?
It's a YES or NO type answer, if you could humour me here.

You make it sound like I've signed a deal with the devil (aka CIA? Bush Family?) and now part of this disinformation conspiracy.

I've studied the evidence more than I ever cared to entertain this subject* because of this thread, and I've come to the conclusion that there was no controlled-demolition involved.

The video you post above which shows a side-by-side comparison is silent, so you don't hear explosive charges going off, and that it perhaps only includes action just seconds or a fraction of a second after all those explosives are set off, such that we miss and don't see the white flashes too.

Also, the firefighters themselves noted the hole in WTC 7 and that it bulged on one side. They aren't even engineers and yet figured that it would collapse before it finally did.

The other buildings didn't collapse because a) they weren't substantially damaged and b) they were not solely steel-framed buildings, but structural reinforced concrete where columns are encased in concrete, being a great fire-proof material as well as adding extra stability, and c) if damaged but built from reinforced concrete, they survived or didn't collapse.


*The JFK Assassination murder conspiracy and cover-up is enough for me, but I never took any 9/11 destruction conspiracy seriously (save and except for the phony wars that followed).

 

[GPIDEAL]

fuji, basket, gp not in that order.
https://denniallen.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/3monkeys_c1jnqdo3.jpg

Instead of these satirical cartoons, why don't you tell us when or where in that video Titalian is referring to, that makes his or your case so we can vet it?

 

[basketcase]

To many unanswered questions, this here is a big question, what happened to these vehicles ?? Who weren't even near ground zero.
...

You know science is about trying to find answers. How about you suggest some? Maybe you could explain how an underground nuke was able to only target 2 buildings on a crowded island and left no radiological or physical trace.

 

[basketcase]

fuji, basket, gp not in that order.

Good image. We see no evidence and hear no evidence because you speak no evidence.

 

[TESLAMotors]

You make it sound like I've signed a deal with the devil (aka CIA? Bush Family?) and now part of this disinformation conspiracy.

I've studied the evidence more than I ever cared to entertain this subject* because of this thread, and I've come to the conclusion that there was no controlled-demolition involved.

The video you post above which shows a side-by-side comparison is silent, so you don't hear explosive charges going off, and that it perhaps only includes action just seconds or a fraction of a second after all those explosives are set off, such that we miss and don't see the white flashes too.

Also, the firefighters themselves noted the hole in WTC 7 and that it bulged on one side. They aren't even engineers and yet figured that it would collapse before it finally did.

The other buildings didn't collapse because a) they weren't substantially damaged and b) they were not solely steel-framed buildings, but structural reinforced concrete where columns are encased in concrete, being a great fire-proof material as well as adding extra stability, and c) if damaged but built from reinforced concrete, they survived or didn't collapse.


*The JFK Assassination murder conspiracy and cover-up is enough for me, but I never took any 9/11 destruction conspiracy seriously (save and except for the phony wars that followed).

It was a simple question, do the buildings in the video above look similar or not in how they fall?

Why the ramble about it? Visually, pretty close or different?

 

[basketcase]

It was a simple question, do the buildings in the video above look similar or not in how they fall?...

If your sole evidence is that they look sort of similar from that one angle, maybe we can prove a zebra and a horse are really the same thing too.


While you're here, I still haven't heard your explanation of how the government could have directed the debris to only damage certain buildings.

 

[TESLAMotors]

Good image. We see no evidence and hear no evidence because you speak no evidence.

So no reply here either... https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Years-Later&p=5352261&viewfull=1#post5352261


But which one is building 7 again?
Remember, one building falls straight down because of explosives, the other because of "raging" fires which are not very visible in terms of damage, smoke, soot on the exterior as one would see AND one column on the INTERIOR of the building in the CORNER which was compromised.

So which is 7 (debris and fire) and which is the building brought down by a controlled demolition?
Please, answer.

 

[TESLAMotors]

If your sole evidence is that they look sort of similar from that one angle, maybe we can prove a zebra and a horse are really the same thing too.

They're very similar aren't they?
Funny thing (having the strong passion I do for animals) I know this topic quite well, Zebras and horses, they actually are from the same family (aka genus) Equus. -actually went horseback riding last week, one of the ladies can attest to that if need be-
.... orr more specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae
Glad you brought that up, thanks.
Little animal lesson for you.

While you're here, I still haven't heard your explanation of how the government could have directed the debris to only damage certain buildings.

This is what's so funny, I say it's a controlled demolition because Verizon was unscathed and as close to WTC 1 as #7 was.
WTC #6 had parts of it still standing.
So I call bullshit on #7 succumbing to RANDOM fire and debris, debris which damaged THE CORNER COLUMN of the INTERIOR of the structure.
To have a building fall perfectly straight down like that, anyone (most anyone it seems) would draw the conclusion that something isn't right.


Like I said, burn a piece of paper from one corner and tell me if that entire sheet of paper burns up in that 1 second or does the flame/fire progressively burn the paper across and take a few seconds?
Random fires at random temperatures with more or with less oxygen, with so many variables, just miraculously and simultaneously compromise structure evenly across and then building comes STRAIGHT DOWN SYMMETRICALLY EXACTLY like what a controlled demolition looks like?

You don't honestly believe RANDOM fires and one corner column could bring down a building perfectly straight down, now do you? LOL

 

[basketcase]

So no reply here either... https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Years-Later&p=5352261&viewfull=1#post5352261
...

So which one is the zebra? Or more significantly, do you have anything even remotely resembling evidence or an explanation?

I'm still stumped by your ability to claim the buildings fell straight down in the same post you show the massive debris field.

 

[Titalian]

Instead of these satirical cartoons, why don't you tell us when or where in that video Titalian is referring to, that makes his or your case so we can vet it?

As you with the JFK conspiracy, I've read many documents and watched many videos. Only difference being the JFK conspiracy is more than 1/2 century old where as this disaster is relatively recent
in comparison. People for the most part, are still trying to come to grips with the tragedy itself. This is a presentation from Dr. Judy Woods, its long but she does delve into details. It is very compelling.

 

[pusher69]

Sad fact is 9/11 will become the new "Holocaust"
...so many truths still to be uncovered... the largest gold heist in the history of evil men

 

[fuji]

Fuji, you claimed it was "pancaking" that caused it.

NIST changed their theory to something different and the RESULT was pancaking.
You are/were still wrong this whole time.
You're done until you change your stance like NIST seems to have done a few times.
With their new theory they haven't provided a model to show what they think happened.
So, you yapped along like a little puppet talking about the "pancaking" being the cause, when NIST says otheriwse.
You really have balls (doubt it) to keep shooting your mouth off here. lol
Or you're just insanely stupid.

Regardless, done talking with you about it because NIST said the pancake was not the cause.


You even disregarded Newton's 3rd Law, which is FUNDAMENTAL even in the "pancake theory". Lmfao
So you're either being VERY INCREDIBLY INTENTIONALLY DISHONEST or you're just so fucking stupid, it's beyond human belief.
Either way, you were wrong.

Have a nice life, done debating this with you.

You are just running from this:

The building collapsed from the impact site.

End of your stupid kook conspiracy theory.

 

[fuji]

It was a simple question, do the buildings in the video above look similar or not in how they fall?

Why the ramble about it? Visually, pretty close or different?

That video is an absolute FRAUD. It picks an angle where the only the top of the WTC is visible, obscuring the impact site and below, which would reveal it to be collapsing from that point, rather than from the ground. Go look at any video on YouTube where the bottom half of the building isn't concealed behind another building and you will see it does not collapse at all like that -- it falls from the middle, not the bottom as in a controlled demolition. Which means the "experts" who created that video are just lying frauds.

You already know this from the thread above, which means you aren't just posting this in ignorance anymore.

You are a lying fraud too.

 

[TESLAMotors]

You are just running from this:

The building collapsed from the impact site.

End of your stupid kook conspiracy theory.

0:58 a firefighter that was there.
3:03 the firefigher is asked about the office fires

He actually mentions Richard Gage the man heading the 1,500+ engineers and architects who question how things happened on 9/11.

"Never in the history of the world, never in the history of high rise skycrapers, never has a skyscraper ever come down as a result of fire.
...because fire does not burn hot enough to compromise and melt steel!.....

what we had in the world trade center and I saw myself was MOLTEN LAVA LIKE POCKETS of molten steel....

I spent the night on the pile searching for bodies and I saw that with my own eyes.

...so who are you going to believe a bunch of government bureaucrats or my fellow brothers which I lost 343 guys that day"



Sorry Fuji, you blew it with your "pancake theory" collapse.
Whereas NIST said their theory was that the pancaking happened as a result of their new theory 5 years later of course. ...and of course, they don't show a model of their new theory.
Convenient isn't it? LOL

 

[TESLAMotors]

It was a simple question, do the buildings in the video above look similar or not in how they fall?

Why the ramble about it? Visually, pretty close or different?

GPIDEAL, no answer? Do the buildings look similar in how they fall or different?
Basketcase, you as well, funny how you guys get all quiet for such a simple question.

I think it's obvious what the answer will be, but I'd like to hear how you see the collapse.

 

[TESLAMotors]

That video is an absolute FRAUD. It picks an angle where the only the top of the WTC is visible, obscuring the impact site and below, which would reveal it to be collapsing from that point, rather than from the ground. Go look at any video on YouTube where the bottom half of the building isn't concealed behind another building and you will see it does not collapse at all like that -- it falls from the middle, not the bottom as in a controlled demolition. Which means the "experts" who created that video are just lying frauds.

You already know this from the thread above, which means you aren't just posting this in ignorance anymore.

You are a lying fraud too.

Various angles of WTC 7, straight down because of a compromised interior CORNER column and office fires...........SSSSTRAIGHT DOWN, much like a controlled demolition. lol

 

[TESLAMotors]

Buildings in the world that survived fires that lasted for hours and DAYS.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours.

NOW THAT'S A BUILDING FIRE! ......18 hours, still standing.

 

[fuji]

3:20 here clearly shows collapse from the impact site:

https://youtu.be/ecv0p8JWsqU

Tesla lied.

As for wtc7 his own video is full of quotes of people warning the building is about to collapse before it did. Were they all in on the conspiracy???

Hilarios, he shot his own foot.