WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[Fizz]

your point is pointless ...yes there was structural damage to wtc 6..but it was not caused by building fires...building fires are the sole cause of the collapse of wtc 7 and damage played no significant role in the collapse according to the NIST REPORT and computer model

ok. now we are getting someplace. i'm going to assume it was a typo and your meant there was structural damage to wtc7, right?

ok. so now there is structural damage to wtc7. in fact there is enough damage to cause 4 stories of the building to bulge. it is unsafe for firefighters to go inside. fires were allowed to continue to burn until they burned themselves out. we agree so far?

so..... speaking of points being completely pointless.... why bother to set off demolitions to bring it down? whats the point? its already got to come down anyway. so whats the rush to get in there and blow it up? why is there a need for an "inside job"? the entire conspiracy theory on wtc7 its just people chasing their own tail. why would the government, or aliens, or zionists, or masons or any other frigging thing you can bother to think of need to secretly set off demolitions when the building needed to come down anyway? WHATS THE POINT?!!!

at the time when there was a bulge in the building and it had become structurally unsound why not just roll up the wrecking ball and take a swing? theres no need for a secret demolition at all. your entire conspiracy theory is COMPLETELY FUCKING POINTLESS!!!!

edit to add---- nevermind. it seems you really did mean building 6. so are you saying there was or there was not structural damage to building 7?

 

[eots]

your point is pointless ...yes there was structural damage to wtc 6..but it was not caused by building fires...building fires are the sole cause of the collapse of wtc 7 and damage played no significant role in the collapse according to the NIST REPORT and computer model

ok. now we are getting someplace. i'm going to assume it was a typo and your meant there was structural damage to wtc7, right?

no..it was not a typo..there was structural damage to wtc 6 that caused a partial collapse
and there was structurally damage of some kind to wtc 7 due to falling debris..but it is irrelevant as NIST states in played no role in the collapse and the cause was building fires alone...got it ?

ok. so now there is structural damage to wtc7. in fact there is enough damage to cause 4 stories of the building to bulge. it is unsafe for firefighters to go inside. fires were allowed to continue to burn until they burned themselves out. we agree so far?

no..although NIST states there was structural damage it is not described as a bulge...anywhere I can find ..only in popular mechanics can I find this stated as fact
and the reason NIST gives for letting the fires burn was that water mains were broken and sprinkler systems and hydrants were not working well enough to fight the fire

so..... speaking of points being completely pointless.... why bother to set off demolitions to bring it down? whats the point? its already got to come down anyway. so whats the rush

why if building fires are the sole cause would anyone assume it would collapse anyways ??..when in the history of man no high rise had ever suffered a complete collapse due to building fires ???

to get in there and blow it up? why is there a need for an "inside job"? the entire conspiracy theory on wtc7 its just people chasing their own tail. why would the government, or aliens, or Zionists, or masons or any other frigging thing you can bother to think of need to secretly set off demolitions when the building needed to come down anyway? WHATS THE POINT?!!!

you are the only fool talking about aliens or zionist or masons and delusions like everyone would just expect a building to implode in on its self from random office fires...I am just trying to present the fact your bulge is not considered by NIST to be relevant to the collapse and building fires alone are what is claimed to be the cause of the collapse

at the time when there was a bulge in the building and it had become structurally unsound why not just roll up the wrecking ball and take a swing? there's no need for a secret demolition at all. your entire conspiracy theory is COMPLETELY FUCKING POINTLESS!!!!

do you have any idea how long it would take to use a wrecking ball on a mammoth building like wtc7...you clown..lol

edit to add---- nevermind. it seems you really did mean building 6. so are you saying there was or there was not structural damage to building 7?

yes but it was deemed irrelevant.... by NIST

 

[DiveCon]

yes but it was deemed irrelevant.... by NIST

why do you keep falling back on whatever the fuck NIST said
who hear has used their findings as proof other than YOU and that fucking idiot christophera?

 

[DiveCon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjykKWWEs3w

maybe because it was only 6 stories(thus less weight on the structural members) or maybe because none of the structural members had been damaged by the towers fall and it was JUST fire

notice WTC6, the center of the building DID collapse
and it was a shorter building than WTC5
why??
because it had parts of a 110 story building weaken its structural members

your point is pointless ...yes there was structural damage to wtc 6..but it was not caused by building fires...building fires are the sole cause of the collapse of wtc 7 and damage played no significant role in the collapse according to the NIST REPORT and computer model

WRONG again
a HUGE section of WTC1 fell into WTC7
making a HUGE gash in the south side

 

[eots]

yes but it was deemed irrelevant.... by NIST

why do you keep falling back on whatever the fuck NIST said
who hear has used their findings as proof other than YOU and that fucking idiot christophera?

lol...no one...lol.. they all rely on popular mechanics.... and their spawn..lol...and urban legends...there is only the NIST report and the FEMA report for official explanations..
popular mechanics is not considered an official source or investigative body of the government...lmao...hate to break it too you

 

[Fizz]

your point is pointless ...yes there was structural damage to wtc 6..but it was not caused by building fires...building fires are the sole cause of the collapse of wtc 7 and damage played no significant role in the collapse according to the NIST REPORT and computer model

no..it was not a typo..there was structural damage to wtc 6 that caused a partial collapse
and there was structurally damage of some kind to wtc 7 due to falling debris..but it is irrelevant as NIST states in played no role in the collapse and the cause was building fires alone...got it ?




no..although NIST states there was structural damage it is not described as a bulge...anywhere I can find ..only in popular mechanics can I find this stated as fact
and the reason NIST gives for letting the fires burn was that water mains were broken and sprinkler systems and hydrants were not working well enough to fight the fire





why if building fires are the sole cause would anyone assume it would collapse anyways ??..when in the history of man no high rise had ever suffered a complete collapse due to building fires ???




you are the only fool talking about aliens or zionist or masons and delusions like everyone would just expect a building to implode in on its self from random office fires...I am just trying to present the fact your bulge is not considered by NIST to be relevant to the collapse and building fires alone are what is claimed to be the cause of the collapse






do you have any idea how long it would take to use a wrecking ball on a mammoth building like wtc7...you clown..lol

edit to add---- nevermind. it seems you really did mean building 6. so are you saying there was or there was not structural damage to building 7?

yes but it was deemed irrelevant.... by NIST

Hhahahahahah!!! thats classic!! you ask if i have any idea how long it would take to bring the building down by wrecking ball but you are saying that the entire building had the metal beams exposed, pre-cut, thermite charges attached and everything wired in 6 hours IN A BURNING BUILDING WITH STRUCTURAL DAMAGE!!!

HAHAHAHhahahahahahahah

i'm gonna piss myself!!!

this is the same building that took a guy several hours to get out off, right? but these other guys went through the whole building and exposed the beams, precut the beams, placed the charges and wired them in 6 hours without anyone ever seeing them.

so... eh.... what was the rush again? why did the building need to be demolished so fast? (please come up with another funny answer as this is the most i have laughed in quite some time).

 

[eots]

no..it was not a typo..there was structural damage to wtc 6 that caused a partial collapse
and there was structurally damage of some kind to wtc 7 due to falling debris..but it is irrelevant as NIST states in played no role in the collapse and the cause was building fires alone...got it ?




no..although NIST states there was structural damage it is not described as a bulge...anywhere I can find ..only in popular mechanics can I find this stated as fact
and the reason NIST gives for letting the fires burn was that water mains were broken and sprinkler systems and hydrants were not working well enough to fight the fire




why if building fires are the sole cause would anyone assume it would collapse anyways ??..when in the history of man no high rise had ever suffered a complete collapse due to building fires ???




you are the only fool talking about aliens or zionist or masons and delusions like everyone would just expect a building to implode in on its self from random office fires...I am just trying to present the fact your bulge is not considered by NIST to be relevant to the collapse and building fires alone are what is claimed to be the cause of the collapse






do you have any idea how long it would take to use a wrecking ball on a mammoth building like wtc7...you clown..lol





yes but it was deemed irrelevant.... by NIST

Hhahahahahah!!! thats classic!! you ask if i have any idea how long it would take to bring the building down by wrecking ball but you are saying that the entire building had the metal beams exposed, pre-cut, thermite charges attached and everything wired in 6 hours IN A BURNING BUILDING WITH STRUCTURAL DAMAGE!!!

HAHAHAHhahahahahahahah

i'm gonna piss myself!!!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc[/ame]

this is the same building that took a guy several hours to get out off, right? but these other guys went through the whole building and exposed the beams, precut the beams, placed the charges and wired them in 6 hours without anyone ever seeing them.

so... eh.... what was the rush again? why did the building need to be demolished so fast? (please come up with another funny answer as this is the most i have laughed in quite some time

one can only speculate on the entire method to the madness without a real investigation but wtc 7 housed most of the documents for pending criminal investigations on wall street
and may well of been used for a staging area for the attacks on the towers...but the fact remains your popular mechanics bulge was not a factor in the collapse

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzPjcoZ_cPw[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf52SayA1w8&NR=1[/ame]

 

[Fizz]

one can only speculate on the entire method to the madness without a real investigation but wtc 7 housed most of the documents for pending criminal investigations on wall street
and may well of been used for a staging area for the attacks on the towers...but the fact remains your popular mechanics bulge was not a factor in the collapse

you keep referring to popular mechanics. i have no idea what you are talking about and havent read that article. i am referring to Deputy Chief Hayden's 2002 interview in which he states:

"By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

so please explain how a controlled demolition creates a four story high bulge in a building hours before "an inside job takes it down with explosives"

 

[eots]

you keep referring to popular mechanics. i have no idea what you are talking about and havent read that article. i am referring to Deputy Chief Hayden's 2002 interview in which he states:

"By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

so please explain how a controlled demolition creates a four story high bulge in a building hours before "an inside job takes it down with explosives"

the quote your referring to was featured in popular mechanics ..where did you hear it ?
or do you even know ? where is the link to to the quote you just posted ??

it is not included in any official account and while there is this one first responder report of this bulge there are many more that stated otherwise and if by chance this so called bulge was created by falling debris in makes no difference to the fact building fires alone are the official cause of the wtc 7 collapse

 

[DiveCon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf52SayA1w8&NR=1

nothing there supports what you claim

 

[eots]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf52SayA1w8&NR=1

nothing there supports what you claim

it supports the fact the building was not a raging inferno at that point and there were no fires reported prior to the evacuation and that it housed the CIA and a sophisticated emergency response center

 

[eots]

yes but it was deemed irrelevant.... by NIST

why do you keep falling back on whatever the fuck NIST said
who hear has used their findings as proof other than YOU and that fucking idiot christophera?

so what divecon is NIST now a troofer moron site as well ??...this has to be your stupidest comment to date and that is saying a lot

 

[DiveCon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf52SayA1w8&NR=1

nothing there supports what you claim

it supports the fact the building was not a raging inferno at that point and there were no fires reported prior to the evacuation and that it housed the CIA and a sophisticated emergency response center

it does no such thing

 

[DiveCon]

yes but it was deemed irrelevant.... by NIST

why do you keep falling back on whatever the fuck NIST said
who hear has used their findings as proof other than YOU and that fucking idiot christophera?

so what divecon is NIST now a troofer moron site as well ??...this has to be your stupidest comment to date and that is saying a lot

no, but you keep claiming that as a point of debate that NO ONE is making

AKA a STRAWMAN

 

[eots]

why do you keep falling back on whatever the fuck NIST said
who hear has used their findings as proof other than YOU and that fucking idiot christophera?

so what divecon is NIST now a troofer moron site as well ??...this has to be your stupidest comment to date and that is saying a lot

no, but you keep claiming that as a point of debate that NO ONE is making

AKA a STRAWMAN

the official story is a strawman ?...so you don't support the findings of NIST ?
who's findings do you support ? or do you just prefer a hodgepodge of myths..fox news reports a little popular mechanics and what ever else floats across your transom ?

 

[eots]

nothing there supports what you claim

it supports the fact the building was not a raging inferno at that point and there were no fires reported prior to the evacuation and that it housed the CIA and a sophisticated emergency response center

it does no such thing

your denial is amazing

 

[DiveCon]

it supports the fact the building was not a raging inferno at that point and there were no fires reported prior to the evacuation and that it housed the CIA and a sophisticated emergency response center

it does no such thing

your denial is amazing

not as much as yours

 

[Fizz]

who's findings do you support ? or do you just prefer a hodgepodge of myths..fox news reports a little popular mechanics and what ever else floats across your transom ?

actually, i would like to ask you the same thing. who's findings do you support?