9/11 documentary now

[Dubai Blue]

The penthouse droping just prior to the exterior is indicative of controlled demolition, whereby the interior columns are severed just a fraction of a second prior to the exterior, so as to create an inward pull on the exterior and keep the debris contained within the building’s footprint.

The debris wasn't contained within the building's footprint though. That's another common fallacy that is repeated as gospel, just like the "freefall" nonsense.

 

[west didsblue]

The debris wasn't contained within the building's footprint though. That's another common fallacy that is repeated as gospel, just like the "freefall" nonsense.

Careful. There'll be some videos up soon "proving" freefall.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

All of that has already been answered in this thread. The building wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by the north tower on the way down, causing critical structural damage,

"The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse."
- https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

then a huge fire started.

Even NIST makes no mention of any "huge" fires. They even go so far as to admit "only the fires on some of the lower floors —7 through 9 and 11 through 13— burned out of control."

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

The debris wasn't contained within the building's footprint though. That's another common fallacy that is repeated as gospel,

"the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field."
- https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

just like the "freefall" nonsense.

"This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)
- http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

 

[Paul_Powers_Tash]

All of that has already been answered in this thread. The building wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by the north tower on the way down, causing critical structural damage, then a huge fire started. Larry Silversteins comments about pulling actually came from the chief of fdny, he didn't want anymors lives being taken so he pulled his guys from the building, which was deemed a good decision.

Your explanation doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. Damage caused to Building 7 by the North Tower would not cause the tower to collapse in the manner that it did. It's nothing more than nonsense fed to a gullible public, as is your explanation of Lassy Silverstein's comments. He didn't say "pull them" he said "pull it" which is demolition speak to bring down the building.

So let's see what we've got:-
1. A building collapses in what demolition experts say is a textbook controlled demolition.
2. The materials that are available as fuel in an office fire don't come close to the required temperature to cause the structure of Building 7 to fail in the manner it did.
3. These buildings are designed to withstand the impact from a Boeing 707. Debris from the North Tower is inconsequential in comparison.
4. We've got Silverstein himself on record giving instructions to "pull it". Demolition slang to bring it down.
5. No other steel frame building in the world has ever collapsed in such a manner from fire.
6. The BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 twenty minutes before it actually collapsed.

Some people will believe anything the mainstream media tell them. Try thinking for yourself.

 

[Dubai Blue]

"the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field."
- https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

"This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)
- http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

Yes, a small part of the outer structure fell at freefall speed for, I think, about 2.5 seconds. But the "truthers" would have us believe the entire building fell at that rate, which simply didn't happen. And there is nothing suspicious about a section of the outer wall falling at that speed, because by the time it collapsed, the building was literally an empty shell.

So which one is it now - a relatively small debris field or within its own footprint? Because they're not the same thing. Several buildings around WTC7 sustained serious damage as a result of the collapse, so there is categorically no truth to the theory that it fell within its own footprint.

 

[west didsblue]

Your explanation doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. Damage caused to Building 7 by the North Tower would not cause the tower to collapse in the manner that it did. It's nothing more than nonsense fed to a gullible public, as is your explanation of Lassy Silverstein's comments. He didn't say "pull them" he said "pull it" which is demolition speak to bring down the building.

So let's see what we've got:-
1. A building collapses in what demolition experts say is a textbook controlled demolition.
2. The materials that are available as fuel in an office fire don't come close to the required temperature to cause the structure of Building 7 to fail in the manner it did.
3. These buildings are designed to withstand the impact from a Boeing 707. Debris from the North Tower is inconsequential in comparison.
4. We've got Silverstein himself on record giving instructions to "pull it". Demolition slang to bring it down.
5. No other steel frame building in the world has ever collapsed in such a manner from fire.
6. The BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 twenty minutes before it actually collapsed.

Some people will believe anything the mainstream media tell them. Try thinking for yourself.

Try reading this which was posted by one of your fellow conspiracy proponents to prove one of his points.
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

 

[Dubai Blue]

Your explanation doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. Damage caused to Building 7 by the North Tower would not cause the tower to collapse in the manner that it did. It's nothing more than nonsense fed to a gullible public, as is your explanation of Lassy Silverstein's comments. He didn't say "pull them" he said "pull it" which is demolition speak to bring down the building.

So let's see what we've got:-
1. A building collapses in what demolition experts say is a textbook controlled demolition.
2. The materials that are available as fuel in an office fire don't come close to the required temperature to cause the structure of Building 7 to fail in the manner it did.
3. These buildings are designed to withstand the impact from a Boeing 707. Debris from the North Tower is inconsequential in comparison.
4. We've got Silverstein himself on record giving instructions to "pull it". Demolition slang to bring it down.
5. No other steel frame building in the world has ever collapsed in such a manner from fire.
6. The BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 twenty minutes before it actually collapsed.

Some people will believe anything the mainstream media tell them. Try thinking for yourself.

Lots of other steel framed buildings have failed due to fire, including a sizeable chunk of WTC 5. And "pull it" isn't demolition slang for bringing a building down with explosives; it's the term used for literally pulling a building down with cables.

All your other questions can be answered by the video on page 44 but you're choosing to just dismiss it all.

 

[jay_mcfc]

Your explanation doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. Damage caused to Building 7 by the North Tower would not cause the tower to collapse in the manner that it did. It's nothing more than nonsense fed to a gullible public, as is your explanation of Lassy Silverstein's comments. He didn't say "pull them" he said "pull it" which is demolition speak to bring down the building.

So let's see what we've got:-
1. A building collapses in what demolition experts say is a textbook controlled demolition.
2. The materials that are available as fuel in an office fire don't come close to the required temperature to cause the structure of Building 7 to fail in the manner it did.
3. These buildings are designed to withstand the impact from a Boeing 707. Debris from the North Tower is inconsequential in comparison.
4. We've got Silverstein himself on record giving instructions to "pull it". Demolition slang to bring it down.
5. No other steel frame building in the world has ever collapsed in such a manner from fire.
6. The BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 twenty minutes before it actually collapsed.

Some people will believe anything the mainstream media tell them. Try thinking for yourself.

You really don't see the irony of your last point, do you? As far as I can see, in this thread it is the ones who don't believe it was an inside job that are prepared to listen to all sides and evidence whilst the truthers just keep repeating the same rhetoric despite the evidence against them.

Btw, I have always thought it was an inside job to one degree or another, until I saw the WTC 7 debunk video where the damage to the building is so vast and visible from the south side that you can clearly see why it would collapse. Not to mention the fact that the inside of the building was practically an empty shell.

Your point 6 about the media reporting it before it came down is now the only thing that concerns me with WTC 7. And the Pentagon attack is suspicious and no debunking videos I've seen can change my mind on that one.

 

[west didsblue]

You really don't see the irony of your last point, do you? As far as I can see, in this thread it is the ones who don't believe it was an inside job that are prepared to listen to all sides and evidence whilst the truthers just keep repeating the same rhetoric despite the evidence against them.

Btw, I have always thought it was an inside job to one degree or another, until I saw the WTC 7 debunk video where the damage to the building is so vast and visible from the south side that you can clearly see why it would collapse. Not to mention the fact that the inside of the building was practically an empty shell.

Your point 6 about the media reporting it before it came down is now the only thing that concerns me with WTC 7. And the Pentagon attack is suspicious and no debunking videos I've seen can change my mind on that one.

What's suspicious about the Pentagon attack?