That video has everything in it about the smoking gun "WTC7" aka Salomon Brothers Building, besides the famous quote of Silverstein.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2lcog_wtc-7-exploding_news

Watch it. It surely contains everything you will never see in the comming hit piece of the History Chanel The 9/11 Conspiracies.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/august200...807hitpiece.htm

Why does it surprise me that, only seconds in to the film, they *fail* to show the collapse of the E Mechanical Penthouse several seconds before global collapse?

Why does it not surprise me that for you gwb 223 the east mechanical penthouse's early collapse explains everything about the WTC7 collapse, yet you are unable to find words that describe what actually occurs to the rest of the 47 story city block structure once that penthouse disappears from view?

MM

The major damage to WTC7 was along the southwest facade, away from the trusses and columns under the east penthouse. Debunkers say WTC7 was heavily damaged and leaning, wouldn't that virtually guarantee the initiating event would be along the southwest facade, toppling in the direction of the missing steel, if it were to collapse from a combination of structural damage and fire?

Sounds very plausible.

Yet the Penthouse did fall.

Duh. Soon followed by the whole friggin' building, collapsing symmetrically, with a level roofline and at high speed!

It came down fast, and it didn't do a 'lean and topple' as would be expected in an uncontrolled damage collapse.

WTC7 suffered a controlled damage collapse which I'm sure was even obvious to you gwb 223, but for your own agenda reasons, you continue to pretend that it was an uncontrolled, 'fluke of nature', high speed, level roofline, symmetrical collapse.


People like yourself and e^n who can unquestioningly accept the normalcy of the WTC7 collapse really scare me.

I always thought it was unsubstantiated paranoia, when I read posts by other 9/11 Truth seekers, who suggested forums like Loose Change would be obvious places for infiltration by those representing the original 9/11 perpetrators. Members, who out of a personal NWO belief, or because they were commissioned, had a vested interest in vigorously undermining efforts to present the other side of 9/11 to the greater public.

When people like gwb 223 and e^n, who occasionally display that they can argue in detail and with well developed logic, make absolute statements of certain belief without the least bit of doubt, I can only wonder who they are lobbying for?

MM

To me the collapse of the penthouse a couple seconds before the fall of 7 is STRONG EVIDENCE OF A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. The INTERIOR SUPPORTS of the building was blown first, causing the penthouse to sink downward and THEN, as we see, the whole thing just came downlike an accordion in 6.5 seconds.

Objects fall along the path of LEAST RESISTANCE. Always. Basic physics, folks. If the area of least resistance had been the damaged side of the building, it would have fallen in that direction. It didn't. It went straight down -- which indicates that the path of greatest resistance -- the structural integrity of the building -- was eliminated suddenly and catastrophically such that what should have been the path of greatest resistance became the path of least resistance -- and down it went.

Fires don't do that. Damage to one side doesn't do that. The only thing that does that is internal, well planned and executed controlled demolition.

Great to hear from you after so long Painter!

Yours words have been sorely missed here.

MM

That's what i was saying. The damage was located on the extreme west side of the south face and joins with the south west corner. The alleged bulge was in the south west corner where the debris damage was. It should have fallen over asymmetrically through the path of least resistance - toward the south. But it fell straight down. Like Painter said the penthouse falling first is strong evidence of CD

Sorry Snake.

I fixed my post. Somehow I lost gwb_223's quote which is what I was responding to.

MM

It was seven seconds , not "a couple seconds".

But anyway - here's you claiming the Penthouse end was cut seven seconds in advance, miragememories claims the whole thing was synchronised. Ho hum.

Why don't you folks squabble about whether it was synchronised or not, then let us know when you have a story you can agree upon?

Extremely petty.

You have no case to back up your claims so you waffle about a few seconds.

A few seconds of collapse time when we are talking about a modern 47 story tower with a city block structural base and you claim it suffered this supposedly understandable high speed collapse because it had some debris damage and a few floors of unfought fires.

Absolutely amazing.

MM

2 vs 7 is a factor of 3.5
Dramatically adrift, vis-a-vis your "synchronised" business. In fact, 7 seconds adrift.

Meanwhile - are you saying the ample FDNY testimony of "fully involved" is wrong?

"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca"

Are you saying that FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca - who walked over by the building on the day itself - knows less about it than you ? Or is he plain lying?

Always those mechanical penthouses... There is of course a whole period in which a structure is weakened. I've seen videos from CDs in which you hear boom boom boom and then complete silence, then gravity takes over and brings it in its footprint. During that demolition phase there might be some movement, there might be some pre-movement. It's absolutely irrelevant. The global main collapse was identical to that of a CD. Some people compare it with those flashes you see in some CD movies and conclude they are not there and therefore no CD. That's not really a good comparison, first of all there are videos with very heavy explosions but then not focused on wtc7, only near wtc7. There are only videos of the collapse itself, that's the phase after the weakening, I would like to see a very long video with sound before the global collapse. Further we have to be aware that the building was fully populated with equipment, cardboards and all other stuff that is normally removed from a building. Normally a building is totally tripped and looks like a card-house, you will then see the flashes and the sound will be sharper because there is no damping of sound.

Some debunkers always launch their logical fallacy trick, they say that since it looks like a CD, has all features of a CD it doesn't prove it is a CD. That is correct indeed, but it also doesn't prove it is a firen driven collapse. I think everything points to a CD, but we don't of course have someone who said "i pressed that button", the sky was officially yellow that day.

Einsteen - in your opinion, was WTC7 prepared for CD before 9/11 or on 9/11 ?

I know you didn't ask me but such a pointless question seemed open to anyone for a response.

Of course a near perfect controlled demolition like we saw with WTC 7, must have been prepped prior to 9/11 and not on 9/11.

MM

OK.
Two follow-up questions then

1) Why was it prepped for CD ?

2) What would "they" have done if WTC1 debris had not hit WTC7, damaged it and started fires? (bearing in mind that WTC1 debris - on the day - barely reached WTC7)

Gwb, I don't know, I really don't know, I wasn't there. In the raw unedited Jowenko interview (watch it)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3271662324445998224

he thinks it could be done, let me summarize why he thinks that

- Do it rigorously, it was already a mess there, he talks about a technique in which you even don't need explosives on higher levels, only cut the columns with a torch in a V shape etc.
- Relatively a few columns, can be done fast, with a good experienced team, right people on the right places at the right time etc.

He is convinced it was a CD because

- Cannot be brought down by fire, he looked at the construction and the building also afterwards, after this interview.
- Absolutely a professional job (not part of the long interview but the edited one) if he looks at the collapse of the building, with his 27 years experience
- etc, watch yourself.

In the edited short interview which they used in the documentary it ends with "that's strange I have no explanation for that" and the documentary suggest that there were raging fires which would detonate the explosives.

I contacted the documentary maker and it seems that Jowenko was confused with wtc3 which they imploded afterwards, when he saw 7 he thought it was one of them. But that doesn't change what he thinks about the building, absolutely a CD.
A forum member here called him and taped it.
Reason for him? In fact that is not important, he only gives his opinion about the collapse, but in the interview he says probably damaged, needs to be imploded, and an insurance issue, if you can blow up a building on 9/11 the insurer will not be too critical, you don't have to strip the whole building. This means it could also be wtc3 on that day and wtc7 in the days after.


If no debris hit wtc7 ? If no debris hits wtc7 then there is no reason to implode it, it is not damaged then is it ? If it had to be demolished and explosives where there already then you have to be sure that debris hits the building. I don't believe that is difficult, if you are able to implode a building then you must alo be able to touch wtc7 with some debris from wtc1, a low horizontal component in the velocity very high in a building will bring debris very far away. I've calculated once that the most far beam only requires an intial horizontal velocity of 8 m/s.

So to summarise (correct me if I've misunderstood) you believe the decision to CD WTC7 was made on the day ?

As I said I don't know it, I posted an experts opinion about the collapse itself. I don't know if they demolished it quickly that day or thet they prepared it before, how could I know that.

asymmetrical damage cannot result in a symmetrical collapse.

What's up Einsteen?

Are we still fighting over if it was CD or not? I don't understand some of you guys... Just throwing weird question to diffuse a discussion. Isn't it plain to see that WTC7 is a weird case? NIST can't even complete their document on this on time or they are stalling because they need to cook something up to diffuse the movement's theories. Anyway good lookin' out to everyone still active in the movement. In my mind I'm sure as hell WTC7 was a CD. No doubt about it.

Hey Dereck, lange tijd niet gezien.

And so on, and so fort... My conclusion is a CD from the very first beginning and I never changed my mind. The only thing that I don't know if it was prepared before or done on that day. Sometimes debunkers jump in here and we have to correct them...

Quote:

"My conclusion is a CD from the very first beginning and I never changed my mind. The only thing that I don't know if it was prepared before or done on that day. Sometimes debunkers jump in here and we have to correct them..."

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition

Extract:

"Preparation : It takes several weeks or months to prepare a building for implosion."

It should not be forgotten that the WTC7 was a large building. This image:

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/debrisfield.jpg

Indicates that the width of building 7 was 329 feet. Which was its height?

If it was prepared in advance the perps would be in terminal trouble if WTC1 debris didn't hit WTC7 and start fires.

If it was prepared on the day then the CD team would have to be trained in advance and ready to go, even though it was far from guaranteed that WTC1 debris would hit. Why have a team ready for this eventuality?

Both scenarios create a huge hostage-to-fortune situation for the supposed conspiracists.

Neither scenario represents a plausible plan for the perps to even try to implement.

And this is even without addressing the question of motive, of which I have never heard a sensible explanation.

No it is not impossible, if it was prepared then it is also possible to be very sure that debris hits wtc7, It is easy to calculate that ejected mass with a relatively small horizontal component will fall far away. In that case the apple falls far from the tree. Fire? I think fire is one of the easiest things to get. I can imagine that some things look very unlikely, so are the events of 9/11 also. A fire driven collapse is also extremely unlikely, if you look at wtc7's collapse it is the best, most symmetrical and cleanest collapse I've ever seen.

And yet ... only a couple of major lumps of WTC1 hit the front of WTC7. If they'd fallen 20 metres shorter they could have missed entirely. The whole plan to CD WTC7 revolved around such fine calculations? OK ....

Why?

If it hadn't happened naturally, with all the chaos that day, it would be easy to make something happen. They didn't show too much concern about credibility.

MM

This is a poor argument MM, here are some better ways to dispose of evidence (the only motive I am aware of for WTC7 destruction)

• Stage a fire
• Take the paper from the building
• Shred it

None of these require the slightest bit of incredulity, all are plausible, extremely hard to prove (given the prevalence of diesel fuel) and even if they fail, given enough damage from WTC1 they could still cordon off the building indefinitely and demolish it without ever allowing anyone inside.

Well lets be fair, it hit three other buildings. It's by no measure the most symmetrical or cleanest collapse I've ever seen, here's one that is cleaner: http://youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Rather than rehashing the same old evidence laundering response e^n why don't you stick with the main issues;

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...post&p=14350985

I know you'd prefer the short kneejerk posts that increase your count but you were the one making the grand claims about taking on any question.

I suggest you finish what you start before you start bragging anew.

MM

I always like the landmark video. I was refering to wtc7, did that hit 3 other buildings ? Wtc7, a superior collapse, you even don't need to determine where to place charges, you don't need to study the construction in order to get a total collapse, you don't have to place charges on higher levels or to weaken them to avoid that big chunks fly around. You only have to raise a fire, correction you only have to drop some debris in it, that will initiate a special kind of fire that does the work. The problem is that debunkers always can refer to the uniqueness of the building, it's long gone and away.

WTC7 did hit 3 other buildings yes, it damaged 23 west broadway, the Verizon building and the building to the opposite side (I cannot remember the name for the life of me), 23 west broadway is being torn down (actually might have been done already, I don't keep up) due to the damage.

Not a bad video. Thanks for posting. Besides for having the symmetrical like descent at close to free fall speed and surrounding dust clouds, what gets me is I can't find any building or partial building anywhere that looks anywhere close to that because of fire. Fire demolition if there is such a term, just has a completely different appearance. None of these characteristics match that of a fire demolishing a building. If someone can show a fire with similar characteristics, it would be very helpful for you to post it.

1) Recal:


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900º C (1,500-1,700º F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600º C (1,100º F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments)."

Madrid Windsor Fire(video)

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-35...earch&plindex=0

The steel structure of Madrid Windsor had resisted fires much more important than those of building 7. However the steel structure of the building 7 was much more massive and resistant than that of Madrid Windsor. See video " Painful Deceptions ", approximately 36 minutes after its start:

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-10...earch&plindex=2

2) WTC 7: anticipated knowledge of its collapse (video) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GEAnn3uN30

3) WTC 7:Anticipated knowledge of its demolition by explosives.

Video: Indira Singh "the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have bring it down"

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=566...earch&plindex=6

This other video shows a bunch of Ground Zero rescuers hearing an explosion and commenting about the WTC 7:

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=122...earch&plindex=1

Rescuer 1: “It’s blowin’ boy. Did you hear that?” Rescuer 2: “Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon.” Rescuer 3: “The building is about to blow up. Move it back!” Rescuer 4: “Move it back here. Alright guys? Sorry.” Rescuer 3: “We are walking back. There’s a building about to blow up. (Inaudible), debris coming down.

And finally: "WTC7 PULL IT"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=605...earch&plindex=3
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=150...earch&plindex=5

Yup. If people still can't see it's a CD then they're just blind. We don't need to know why or how or who. It would be nice to know but it's not important for us to see that it is indeed a demolition. Just like a magician you know what he does is fake but it's still amazing. The same thing with building 7 here. They pulled some tricks on all of us.

No. You have it totally and utterly wrong.
You couldn't be wronger.
The core structure of the Windsor building was RC. The only parts that failed through fire were exterior steel columns.

http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

http://www.concretecentre.com/PDF/CQSummer2006.pdf

I love how you guys will argue "black is white" or "white is black" depending on which way the wind is blowing.

One moment gwb_223 you're arguing massive damage to the southside of WTC7 due to major falling debris from WTC1 (North Tower). Major corner damage and a huge gouge out of the middle. And all this followed up by virtual towering inferno as WTC 7 was supposedly totally involved by fire.

Now because you wish to argue motive, you reduce this to a "couple of major lumps of WTC 1 hitting WTC7. That they barely even reached WTC 7.

Trained monkeys have little control over what they do and you are no different gwb_223.

You and e^n give no serious thought to the volumes of evidence about WTC 7's collapse, that at the very least should force you to concede some doubt about the OCT natural cause explanation.

You and e^n either have zero imagination when it comes to the requisite inner mental visualization that makes sense of the controlled demolition nature of the WTC 7 collapse, or you are owned by those who have a vested interest disseminating a very distorted view of reality.

To be rank amateurs on the subject, which you two are, and still remain adamant in your sole belief supporting OCT, in spite of the enormous contradictions which easily justify doubt, amply displays your total lack of integrity regarding the subject of the cause for the WTC 7 collapse.

I really think you two should be confined to the Skeptics SubForum where you can spread your propaganda at will, and do less malicious harm inflicting your bigotry on the sincere 9/11 Truth seekers who are only trying to better understand the events of 9/11.

Loose Change Admins, if you care about the health of this forum you might heed my words?
MM

gwb 223 your remarks are undoubtedly partially valid but I am not certain to have wrong by saying that building 7 was more resistant than Madrid windsor. It would be necessary to have the opinion of structural steel engineers.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...re/windsor.html

"In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.

In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described below, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building."

"The observation that the Windsor Building is the only skyscraper to have suffered even a partial collapse as a result of fire suggests that the use of steel-reinforced-concrete framing was responsible."

A certainty is that the steel elements of building 7 were much more massive than those of Madrid windsor. it would be necessary to know how long those of Madrid windsor had resisted at fires which was, for this building, much more important than those of building 7.

the fire of “Madrid windsor” was not the only element of my preceding message.

I forgot that (the most important) :

The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.

Estimated time frame of collapses

Time Collapse Situation
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down

it is necessary to compare this gradual and partial collapse of the “Madrid windsor” with the 6,5 seconds of the total and vertical collapse of building 7.

Excellent replies tit2.

As you clearly reveal, except for well done controlled demolitions which are carefully engineered to be rapid and symmetrical collapses, gradual, asymmetrical collapses are the norm in buildings disintegrating from fire damage.

This is largely true, regardless of the materials used, and the type of construction involved, in any building. High speed, complete, symmetrical collapses are extremely improbable (virtually impossible), without artificial inducement.

MM