I am not into the truther movement but I have a question

[bigrebnc1775]

dear sister jones 2.25 secs of free fall is meaningless..



Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (09/17/2010, ARCHIVE, incorporated into 9/19/2011 update)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

•Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
•Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
•Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Still doesn't explain why the BBC reported that building 7 fell before it actually fell.
A mistake would be to report the incorrect building had fallen, not report that the building had fallen before it fell.

it does not have too... getting and reporting bad info is all a part of the news game, the point is not whether the BBC reported that it had fallen.
the point is it was standing long after they reported it fallen.
that alone would for any one with correctly functioning set of eyes and brain know that the report was wrong.
the BBC did retract the story and apologized.
besides twoofers never let little things like facts get in the way.

the BBC did retract the story and apologized.

Retract what that they were told to report that building 7 fell?

it does not have too... getting and reporting bad info is all a part of the news game, the point is not whether the BBC reported that it had fallen.
the point is it was standing long after they reported it fallen.

No a mistake is reporting that obama is dead that's a mistake the people who told the reporter to say building 7 fell made the mistake a little early.

 

[daws101]

Still doesn't explain why the BBC reported that building 7 fell before it actually fell.
A mistake would be to report the incorrect building had fallen, not report that the building had fallen before it fell.

it does not have too... getting and reporting bad info is all a part of the news game, the point is not whether the BBC reported that it had fallen.
the point is it was standing long after they reported it fallen.
that alone would for any one with correctly functioning set of eyes and brain know that the report was wrong.
the BBC did retract the story and apologized.
besides twoofers never let little things like facts get in the way.

the BBC did retract the story and apologized.

Retract what that they were told to report that building 7 fell?

it does not have too... getting and reporting bad info is all a part of the news game, the point is not whether the BBC reported that it had fallen.
the point is it was standing long after they reported it fallen.

No a mistake is reporting that obama is dead that's a mistake the people who told the reporter to say building 7 fell made the mistake a little early.

why are you attempting to put a sinister spin where there is none.
obviously you have no clue how the media works.( ALTHOUGH YOU CLAIM TO)
A short lesson in news gathering and reporting:
1.a reporter is sent to the scene HE /SHE INTERVIEWS witnesses.
2. the report is sent back to the studio via, radio, video, phone.
3. then the report is fact checked proof read then broadcast.
UNLESS it's breaking news (wtc7) then it's reported live, raw feed.
when that happens there is no time to "tell them what to say.."
here's an example: the Colorado batman shootings....first reports said 70 people were shot then later it was 53.
finally the correct number was reported.
after things settled down.
first reports are almost always incorrect, that's what happened at wtc7.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it does not have too... getting and reporting bad info is all a part of the news game, the point is not whether the BBC reported that it had fallen.
the point is it was standing long after they reported it fallen.
that alone would for any one with correctly functioning set of eyes and brain know that the report was wrong.
the BBC did retract the story and apologized.
besides twoofers never let little things like facts get in the way.

Retract what that they were told to report that building 7 fell?

it does not have too... getting and reporting bad info is all a part of the news game, the point is not whether the BBC reported that it had fallen.
the point is it was standing long after they reported it fallen.

No a mistake is reporting that obama is dead that's a mistake the people who told the reporter to say building 7 fell made the mistake a little early.

why are you attempting to put a sinister spin where there is none.
obviously you have no clue how the media works.( ALTHOUGH YOU CLAIM TO)
A short lesson in news gathering and reporting:
1.a reporter is sent to the scene HE /SHE INTERVIEWS witnesses.
2. the report is sent back to the studio via, radio, video, phone.
3. then the report is fact checked proof read then broadcast.
UNLESS it's breaking news (wtc7) then it's reported live, raw feed.
when that happens there is no time to "tell them what to say.."
here's an example: the Colorado batman shootings....first reports said 70 people were shot then later it was 53.
finally the correct number was reported.
after things settled down.
first reports are almost always incorrect, that's what happened at wtc7.

I'm not putting a spin on anything. The TelePrompter reported building 7 had fallen before it fell

A short lesson on news gathering? Like that lesson of the green screen?

 

[daws101]

Retract what that they were told to report that building 7 fell?


No a mistake is reporting that obama is dead that's a mistake the people who told the reporter to say building 7 fell made the mistake a little early.

why are you attempting to put a sinister spin where there is none.
obviously you have no clue how the media works.( ALTHOUGH YOU CLAIM TO)
A short lesson in news gathering and reporting:
1.a reporter is sent to the scene HE /SHE INTERVIEWS witnesses.
2. the report is sent back to the studio via, radio, video, phone.
3. then the report is fact checked proof read then broadcast.
UNLESS it's breaking news (wtc7) then it's reported live, raw feed.
when that happens there is no time to "tell them what to say.."
here's an example: the Colorado batman shootings....first reports said 70 people were shot then later it was 53.
finally the correct number was reported.
after things settled down.
first reports are almost always incorrect, that's what happened at wtc7.

I'm not putting a spin on anything. The TelePrompter reported building 7 had fallen before it fell

A short lesson on news gathering? Like that lesson of the green screen?

so what? a TelePrompter is just a machine....who ever was operating it got the story wrong. like I SAID.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

why are you attempting to put a sinister spin where there is none.
obviously you have no clue how the media works.( ALTHOUGH YOU CLAIM TO)
A short lesson in news gathering and reporting:
1.a reporter is sent to the scene HE /SHE INTERVIEWS witnesses.
2. the report is sent back to the studio via, radio, video, phone.
3. then the report is fact checked proof read then broadcast.
UNLESS it's breaking news (wtc7) then it's reported live, raw feed.
when that happens there is no time to "tell them what to say.."
here's an example: the Colorado batman shootings....first reports said 70 people were shot then later it was 53.
finally the correct number was reported.
after things settled down.
first reports are almost always incorrect, that's what happened at wtc7.

I'm not putting a spin on anything. The TelePrompter reported building 7 had fallen before it fell

A short lesson on news gathering? Like that lesson of the green screen?

so what? a TelePrompter is just a machine....who ever was operating it got the story wrong. like I SAID.

There you go, a TelePrompter is just a machine that has a person typing in the words to say.
How did they get it wrong when building 7 fell?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

It's called making a mistake. The media does it all the time.

its called your living in denial and only see what you want to see.

 

[daws101]

I'm not putting a spin on anything. The TelePrompter reported building 7 had fallen before it fell

A short lesson on news gathering? Like that lesson of the green screen?

so what? a TelePrompter is just a machine....who ever was operating it got the story wrong. like I SAID.

There you go, a TelePrompter is just a machine that has a person typing in the words to say.
How did they get it wrong when building 7 fell?

are you this dense all the time?
it's been explained.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I'm not putting a spin on anything. The TelePrompter reported building 7 had fallen before it fell

A short lesson on news gathering? Like that lesson of the green screen?

so what? a TelePrompter is just a machine....who ever was operating it got the story wrong. like I SAID.

There you go, a TelePrompter is just a machine that has a person typing in the words to say.
How did they get it wrong when building 7 fell?

BBC reported the World Trade Center Building 7 collapse before it fell. Furthermore, CNN's Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" over an hour before it fell. All the local New York network affiliates also report that the building is "about to collapse", most at least three times. These clips both reinforce the shocking, newly discovered BBC coverage wherein Jane Standley reports the collapse early-- with the building still standing behind her. The early timing of these reports is now verified with multiple cross refrence sources announcing Building 7 is about to fall or has fallen more than one hour before its actual collapse. Furthermore, both the BBC report with Jane Standley and the CNN report with Aaron Brown clearly show Building 7 still standing, 'billowing with smoke' as the collapse is reported-- so premature reporting is confirmed visually as well.

There is no longer any doubt they were all reading off the same script. Reports mirrored testimony of scores of fire fighters, police and emergency workers who were told to get back from the building in the 2 hours before Salomon Brothers building (better known as WTC 7) fell at free-fall speed. Rescue workers were told the building was to be brought down in a controlled demolition.

The group that carried out the demolition of Building 7 was in a position to feed the media and local authorities an official story. We have the controlled demolition of Building 7 hidden in plain sight-- including an admission by the building's 99-year lease holder Larry Silverstein.

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives..

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

Silverstein is reported (verified) to have been asking for permission from his insurance company to implode his own property.
It would be seemingly impossible for Alqaeda to have access to his buildings to plant CD devices, so why would he allow his building to be rigged for destruction?

The NIST cut and paste Dawgshit keeps posting is the very same BS that has been debunked and shown to be a lie and a coverup. The media assumed that falling debris contributed to its demise, but even NIST denied this as a contributing factor.
That they admitted to such a huge "error" about the freefall is very telling and contradicts their earlier report and adamant stance that it could not have experienced freefall because the massive structure would pose great resistance, to the falling mass, which they themselves said "is consistent with physical properties"

Now that they have admitted to freefall, all references to "consistant with physical properties" is redacted from their updated concessionary statements that indeed WTC 7 experienced a period of freefall.
This revelation is important, as WTC 7 had asymmetrical, and sporadic fires that would not have caused it to collapse in such a symmetrical manner.
Only the removal of this resistance would allow for the massive building to fall as it did, as only a CD could achieve.
Dawgshits circular and inconsistent arguments regarding this assumes you are as dense and or willfully obtuse as he is.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu_En1tU8wU]9/11 WTC 7 Collapse Reported On BBC Several Times The Hour Before It Happened - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PqbGfCcef0]9/11 CNN Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it Happens - YouTube[/ame]

Here's a video that deals with NIST's explaining how freefall would be impossible because the building would pose too much resistance for freefall at anytime to occur.
Obviously they have changed their stance and documented this change in their final report
in which they leave out all reference to the observed collapse as being consistent with physical properties and the laws of physics.
NIST does not show how freefall is consistent with their hypothesis, that fire alone is to blame for WTC 7's demise, which then brings us back to how the resistance of the building was removed in order to facilitate the occurrence of freefall, who rigged the building, ( Alqaeda and OBL? Not likely with all the "security at the complex) and of course Larry Silversteins involvement, and the BBC,CNN, and others foreknowledge of collapse, including the report posted by Fox news of the conversation he had with his insurance company asking for permission to CD his building, that tried to explain Silverstein's actions, and plea to CD WTC 7, as normal and even heroic, as a way to smoke screen what is obviously a CD, complete with all the characteristics of one, including the removal of resistance such a massive building would pose, that NIST finally was forced to admit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) - YouTube[/ame]

Keep using your God given common sense and logic, along with the data and facts surrounding the events, and the dots will start to connect, and you will see that the people who you trusted to deliver you the truth about 9-11 have lied to you, and that the power and authority of just a few top echelon traitors was enough to carry this out, complete with their influence of the media, to perpetrate the attempted cover up during the event and afterwards, up to this day.

 

[daws101]

so what? a TelePrompter is just a machine....who ever was operating it got the story wrong. like I SAID.

There you go, a TelePrompter is just a machine that has a person typing in the words to say.
How did they get it wrong when building 7 fell?

BBC reported the World Trade Center Building 7 collapse before it fell. Furthermore, CNN's Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" over an hour before it fell. All the local New York network affiliates also report that the building is "about to collapse", most at least three times. These clips both reinforce the shocking, newly discovered BBC coverage wherein Jane Standley reports the collapse early-- with the building still standing behind her. The early timing of these reports is now verified with multiple cross refrence sources announcing Building 7 is about to fall or has fallen more than one hour before its actual collapse. Furthermore, both the BBC report with Jane Standley and the CNN report with Aaron Brown clearly show Building 7 still standing, 'billowing with smoke' as the collapse is reported-- so premature reporting is confirmed visually as well.

There is no longer any doubt they were all reading off the same script. Reports mirrored testimony of scores of fire fighters, police and emergency workers who were told to get back from the building in the 2 hours before Salomon Brothers building (better known as WTC 7) fell at free-fall speed. Rescue workers were told the building was to be brought down in a controlled demolition.

The group that carried out the demolition of Building 7 was in a position to feed the media and local authorities an official story. We have the controlled demolition of Building 7 hidden in plain sight-- including an admission by the building's 99-year lease holder Larry Silverstein.

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives..

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

Silverstein is reported (verified) to have been asking for permission from his insurance company to implode his own property.
It would be seemingly impossible for Alqaeda to have access to his buildings to plant CD devices, so why would he allow his building to be rigged for destruction?

The NIST cut and paste Dawgshit keeps posting is the very same BS that has been debunked and shown to be a lie and a coverup. The media assumed that falling debris contributed to its demise, but even NIST denied this as a contributing factor.
That they admitted to such a huge "error" about the freefall is very telling and contradicts their earlier report and adamant stance that it could not have experienced freefall because the massive structure would pose great resistance, to the falling mass, which they themselves said "is consistent with physical properties"

Now that they have admitted to freefall, all references to "consistant with physical properties" is redacted from their updated concessionary statements that indeed WTC 7 experienced a period of freefall.
This revelation is important, as WTC 7 had asymmetrical, and sporadic fires that would not have caused it to collapse in such a symmetrical manner.
Only the removal of this resistance would allow for the massive building to fall as it did, as only a CD could achieve.
Dawgshits circular and inconsistent arguments regarding this assumes you are as dense and or willfully obtuse as he is.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu_En1tU8wU]9/11 WTC 7 Collapse Reported On BBC Several Times The Hour Before It Happened - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PqbGfCcef0]9/11 CNN Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it Happens - YouTube[/ame]

Here's a video that deals with NIST's explaining how freefall would be impossible because the building would pose too much resistance for freefall at anytime to occur.
Obviously they have changed their stance and documented this change in their final report
in which they leave out all reference to the observed collapse as being consistent with physical properties and the laws of physics.
NIST does not show how freefall is consistent with their hypothesis, that fire alone is to blame for WTC 7's demise, which then brings us back to how the resistance of the building was removed in order to facilitate the occurrence of freefall, who rigged the building, ( Alqaeda and OBL? Not likely with all the "security at the complex) and of course Larry Silversteins involvement, and the BBC,CNN, and others foreknowledge of collapse, including the report posted by Fox news of the conversation he had with his insurance company asking for permission to CD his building, that tried to explain Silverstein's actions, and plea to CD WTC 7, as normal and even heroic, as a way to smoke screen what is obviously a CD, complete with all the characteristics of one, including the removal of resistance such a massive building would pose, that NIST finally was forced to admit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) - YouTube[/ame]

Keep using your God given common sense and logic, along with the data and facts surrounding the events, and the dots will start to connect, and you will see that the people who you trusted to deliver you the truth about 9-11 have lied to you, and that the power and authority of just a few top echelon traitors was enough to carry this out, complete with their influence of the media, to perpetrate the attempted cover up during the event and afterwards, up to this day.

best load of paranoid shit ever.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I]Penn & Teller - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. Jones]

There you go, a TelePrompter is just a machine that has a person typing in the words to say.
How did they get it wrong when building 7 fell?

BBC reported the World Trade Center Building 7 collapse before it fell. Furthermore, CNN's Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" over an hour before it fell. All the local New York network affiliates also report that the building is "about to collapse", most at least three times. These clips both reinforce the shocking, newly discovered BBC coverage wherein Jane Standley reports the collapse early-- with the building still standing behind her. The early timing of these reports is now verified with multiple cross refrence sources announcing Building 7 is about to fall or has fallen more than one hour before its actual collapse. Furthermore, both the BBC report with Jane Standley and the CNN report with Aaron Brown clearly show Building 7 still standing, 'billowing with smoke' as the collapse is reported-- so premature reporting is confirmed visually as well.

There is no longer any doubt they were all reading off the same script. Reports mirrored testimony of scores of fire fighters, police and emergency workers who were told to get back from the building in the 2 hours before Salomon Brothers building (better known as WTC 7) fell at free-fall speed. Rescue workers were told the building was to be brought down in a controlled demolition.

The group that carried out the demolition of Building 7 was in a position to feed the media and local authorities an official story. We have the controlled demolition of Building 7 hidden in plain sight-- including an admission by the building's 99-year lease holder Larry Silverstein.

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives..

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

Silverstein is reported (verified) to have been asking for permission from his insurance company to implode his own property.
It would be seemingly impossible for Alqaeda to have access to his buildings to plant CD devices, so why would he allow his building to be rigged for destruction?

The NIST cut and paste Dawgshit keeps posting is the very same BS that has been debunked and shown to be a lie and a coverup. The media assumed that falling debris contributed to its demise, but even NIST denied this as a contributing factor.
That they admitted to such a huge "error" about the freefall is very telling and contradicts their earlier report and adamant stance that it could not have experienced freefall because the massive structure would pose great resistance, to the falling mass, which they themselves said "is consistent with physical properties"

Now that they have admitted to freefall, all references to "consistant with physical properties" is redacted from their updated concessionary statements that indeed WTC 7 experienced a period of freefall.
This revelation is important, as WTC 7 had asymmetrical, and sporadic fires that would not have caused it to collapse in such a symmetrical manner.
Only the removal of this resistance would allow for the massive building to fall as it did, as only a CD could achieve.
Dawgshits circular and inconsistent arguments regarding this assumes you are as dense and or willfully obtuse as he is.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu_En1tU8wU]9/11 WTC 7 Collapse Reported On BBC Several Times The Hour Before It Happened - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PqbGfCcef0]9/11 CNN Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it Happens - YouTube[/ame]

Here's a video that deals with NIST's explaining how freefall would be impossible because the building would pose too much resistance for freefall at anytime to occur.
Obviously they have changed their stance and documented this change in their final report
in which they leave out all reference to the observed collapse as being consistent with physical properties and the laws of physics.
NIST does not show how freefall is consistent with their hypothesis, that fire alone is to blame for WTC 7's demise, which then brings us back to how the resistance of the building was removed in order to facilitate the occurrence of freefall, who rigged the building, ( Alqaeda and OBL? Not likely with all the "security at the complex) and of course Larry Silversteins involvement, and the BBC,CNN, and others foreknowledge of collapse, including the report posted by Fox news of the conversation he had with his insurance company asking for permission to CD his building, that tried to explain Silverstein's actions, and plea to CD WTC 7, as normal and even heroic, as a way to smoke screen what is obviously a CD, complete with all the characteristics of one, including the removal of resistance such a massive building would pose, that NIST finally was forced to admit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) - YouTube[/ame]

Keep using your God given common sense and logic, along with the data and facts surrounding the events, and the dots will start to connect, and you will see that the people who you trusted to deliver you the truth about 9-11 have lied to you, and that the power and authority of just a few top echelon traitors was enough to carry this out, complete with their influence of the media, to perpetrate the attempted cover up during the event and afterwards, up to this day.

best load of paranoid shit ever.

Prove it asswipe.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

i was watching this video from the bbc talking about building 7 collapsing but when they were talking about it they showed it still standing even though they said it has collapsed. How can that be?

if this does not get thru to you; nothing will!!! - youtube

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials. .

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

This thread says it all: Wishing eots was in wtc 7 when it collapsed

 

[paulitician]

This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials. .

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

This thread says it all: Wishing eots was in wtc 7 when it collapsed

You're such a sad twisted little mutant. Wishing death on a person for questioning the Government's story on 9/11? Man, get some help. You're a menace to society.

 

[daws101]

BBC reported the World Trade Center Building 7 collapse before it fell. Furthermore, CNN's Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" over an hour before it fell. All the local New York network affiliates also report that the building is "about to collapse", most at least three times. These clips both reinforce the shocking, newly discovered BBC coverage wherein Jane Standley reports the collapse early-- with the building still standing behind her. The early timing of these reports is now verified with multiple cross refrence sources announcing Building 7 is about to fall or has fallen more than one hour before its actual collapse. Furthermore, both the BBC report with Jane Standley and the CNN report with Aaron Brown clearly show Building 7 still standing, 'billowing with smoke' as the collapse is reported-- so premature reporting is confirmed visually as well.

There is no longer any doubt they were all reading off the same script. Reports mirrored testimony of scores of fire fighters, police and emergency workers who were told to get back from the building in the 2 hours before Salomon Brothers building (better known as WTC 7) fell at free-fall speed. Rescue workers were told the building was to be brought down in a controlled demolition.

The group that carried out the demolition of Building 7 was in a position to feed the media and local authorities an official story. We have the controlled demolition of Building 7 hidden in plain sight-- including an admission by the building's 99-year lease holder Larry Silverstein.

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives..

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

Silverstein is reported (verified) to have been asking for permission from his insurance company to implode his own property.
It would be seemingly impossible for Alqaeda to have access to his buildings to plant CD devices, so why would he allow his building to be rigged for destruction?

The NIST cut and paste Dawgshit keeps posting is the very same BS that has been debunked and shown to be a lie and a coverup. The media assumed that falling debris contributed to its demise, but even NIST denied this as a contributing factor.
That they admitted to such a huge "error" about the freefall is very telling and contradicts their earlier report and adamant stance that it could not have experienced freefall because the massive structure would pose great resistance, to the falling mass, which they themselves said "is consistent with physical properties"

Now that they have admitted to freefall, all references to "consistant with physical properties" is redacted from their updated concessionary statements that indeed WTC 7 experienced a period of freefall.
This revelation is important, as WTC 7 had asymmetrical, and sporadic fires that would not have caused it to collapse in such a symmetrical manner.
Only the removal of this resistance would allow for the massive building to fall as it did, as only a CD could achieve.
Dawgshits circular and inconsistent arguments regarding this assumes you are as dense and or willfully obtuse as he is.


9/11 WTC 7 Collapse Reported On BBC Several Times The Hour Before It Happened - YouTube

9/11 CNN Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it Happens - YouTube

Here's a video that deals with NIST's explaining how freefall would be impossible because the building would pose too much resistance for freefall at anytime to occur.
Obviously they have changed their stance and documented this change in their final report
in which they leave out all reference to the observed collapse as being consistent with physical properties and the laws of physics.
NIST does not show how freefall is consistent with their hypothesis, that fire alone is to blame for WTC 7's demise, which then brings us back to how the resistance of the building was removed in order to facilitate the occurrence of freefall, who rigged the building, ( Alqaeda and OBL? Not likely with all the "security at the complex) and of course Larry Silversteins involvement, and the BBC,CNN, and others foreknowledge of collapse, including the report posted by Fox news of the conversation he had with his insurance company asking for permission to CD his building, that tried to explain Silverstein's actions, and plea to CD WTC 7, as normal and even heroic, as a way to smoke screen what is obviously a CD, complete with all the characteristics of one, including the removal of resistance such a massive building would pose, that NIST finally was forced to admit.

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) - YouTube

Keep using your God given common sense and logic, along with the data and facts surrounding the events, and the dots will start to connect, and you will see that the people who you trusted to deliver you the truth about 9-11 have lied to you, and that the power and authority of just a few top echelon traitors was enough to carry this out, complete with their influence of the media, to perpetrate the attempted cover up during the event and afterwards, up to this day.

Prove it asswipe.

already have just like in the fake planes thread!

 

[Triton]

I love it when the debunkpunks try to explain the manner of building 7's collapse.

In fact, WTC 7 is like their kryptonite yet they still try to spin it anyway they can.

For example they will argue something to the effect of ---- planes crashed into nearby buildings so that is why it had a near free fall total collapse 8 hours later ----



Its pure hilarity.

 

[candycorn]

I love it when the debunkpunks try to explain the manner of building 7's collapse.

In fact, WTC 7 is like their kryptonite yet they still try to spin it anyway they can.

For example they will argue something to the effect of ---- planes crashed into nearby buildings so that is why it had a near free fall total collapse 8 hours later ----

Its pure hilarity.

Photographic evidence clearly shows the building fully involved in fire and missing up to 20 floors at one of it's corners. That is why it fell.

Three years later and you're still believing your own shit?

 

[Mr. Jones]

I love it when the debunkpunks try to explain the manner of building 7's collapse.

In fact, WTC 7 is like their kryptonite yet they still try to spin it anyway they can.

For example they will argue something to the effect of ---- planes crashed into nearby buildings so that is why it had a near free fall total collapse 8 hours later ----

Its pure hilarity.

Photographic evidence clearly shows the building fully involved in fire and missing up to 20 floors at one of it's corners. That is why it fell.

Three years later and you're still believing your own shit?

If that were true then it would not have fallen in such a uniform manner, nor would it have experienced free fall, because of the law of conservation of momentum. If you believe that this physics law has no value, go and test it yourself by driving your car into a brick wall and see how much slower your acceleration will be upon impact. In fact I strongly urge that you perform this easy test..It'll be brief and explain what I'm talking about much more convincingly. If not then just try walking through a closed door with your hands behind your back while someone has a stop watch to time you..This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. .

You lie and you clearly contradict the NIST report that you worship, as it states that the damage caused to WTC 7 did not contribute to its demise.
Other buildings that were actually and honestly fully involved in huge fires that made the WTC 7 fires look like a camp fire, for much longer durations and more intensity, did not ever collapse like a CD, experiencing any free fall.
It would be expected to fall towards the side of this missing 20 floors, ( remove a leg from a chair and see which way it falls you idiot) and not go from stable to having no resistance with free fall of 8 floors in a symmetrical and even roof line descent.

Even NIST probably knew that saying the stupid shit you just posted would have drawn an immediate and justified BS! rebuttal, as the video evidence does not come close to even suggesting what you claim was possible.
And BTW...the posters who rebuttal your insane OCT fairy tale, get their information from independent, credible sources and physicists from all over the world, and do not make up or believe their "own shit" unlike you who make up your own crap that goes against the OCT in general, and specifically the NIST, and many of the 9-11 commission panelists.

To be clear, a crumbling (naturally collapsing) building absorbs kinetic energy making free fall impossible.
NIST agrees saying that- Free fall in a building collapsing naturally ("crumpling") is impossible.
NIST further clarifies by saying that- Only when structural components structural resistances are removed can buildings free fall as in a controlled demolition. -- not "crumpling" and not "naturally collapsing"
NIST finally admitted that- WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 secs. for about 8 floors, i.e., NO structural resistance and not "crumpling" and not "naturally collapsing" which means WTC7 experienced a state of collapse that can only be achieved by the removal of structural resistance that can only be done by deliberate actions like in a controlled demolition, not by fucking accident or miracles.

Free fall means NO RESISTANCE ..So... how did the building provide no resistance?

 

[eots]

I love it when the debunkpunks try to explain the manner of building 7's collapse.

In fact, WTC 7 is like their kryptonite yet they still try to spin it anyway they can.

For example they will argue something to the effect of ---- planes crashed into nearby buildings so that is why it had a near free fall total collapse 8 hours later ----

Its pure hilarity.

Photographic evidence clearly shows the building fully involved in fire and missing up to 20 floors at one of it's corners. That is why it fell.

Three years later and you're still believing your own shit?

So you feel the NIST report was wrong as they determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and that fire alone would have resulted in collapse...do you also feel the rest of the report is wrong ?

 

[candycorn]

18 floors missing at the corner. It falls. Pretty simple really.

Any word on the lightpoles yet (since we're in the wayback machine)? No? Carry on.

 

[paulitician]

Our Government lied to us. Par for the course though i guess. The 9/11 Truth Movement is dead. Big Brother has been very successful in marginalizing anyone who dares to speak out. It is very sad, but it is what it is.