WTC Building 7

Discuss.

It collapsed.

Perfectly onto itself; explain.

ZOMFG!!! TEH UNITED ST8S DID IT!!!11!!

I haVE TEH PRUFE! FIRE BURNZ HOTTER THAN ROCK 'N STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL

I've just been watching videos on it. And reading some fact checker websites and never has any building collapsed from being on fire, until the attacks on 9/11.

That's all fine and dandy, but even better is WTC7 was never hit by any plane, or anything. No large peices of the Twin Towers collapsed onto them, there were only a few minor fires in the building and out of nowhere, it collapsed onto itself identical to every collapse you've ever seen on TV. The midddle of the building goes first, and make the building fall towards the center of itself then both sides give out and the demolition is perfect.

Rule number one, DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB!

The History channel explained that WTC 7 was on fire from one of the twin towers debris, and that the fire was fueled by a leak from diesel tanks that supported backup generators. Over the course of the day the trusses weakend. Also WTC 7 did not have steel beams supporting it, according to the History channel special.

I was inside of this building during 9/11. We all escaped via a subterranean elevator. The end.

Actually the building was primairily made up of steel, I'm not sure if you or the History channel is wrong. And the building fell to the ground in 6.5 seconds. Even if fire did cause it to collapse, doesn't that scenario seem a little weird to you? I mean, fire has never destroyed a skyscraper ever, even so there have been buildings burning for weeks at a time that have never collapsed upon themselves before in history, and on 9/11 was the first time one actually collapsed in onto itself.

World Trade Center 7 housed SEC files relating to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. While some were backed up in other places, others were not, especially those classified as confidential.[49] Files relating Citigroup to the WorldCom scandal were lost.[50] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimates over 10,000 cases will be affected.[51] The Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees, in WTC 7 and also lost investigative files. Says one agent: “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.”[52] The collapse of 7 World Trade Center is remarkable because it was the first known instance of a tall building collapsing primarily by uncontrolled fires

So some storage barrels of diesel fuel that wasn't even there, and the steel that was there just crumbled onto itself in a matter of 6.5 seconds which is the exact same amount of time that any average building demolition takes place of.

Between 6:10-6:11 you can notice about 6-7 floors simultaneously exhume black smoke as if charges were going off at the same time. It's been almost 9 years since the "attacks" and we still haven't found out a legitimate answer other than "it got hot, and sprinklers weren't working".

Never took you for a Truther.

I'm not a truther, those people are ridiculous. I'm more of a skeptic. I don't think anything of this military precision could've been an inside job, perhaps suggesting that the building were demolished. But just from looking at it, I'd say any level-headed person could see something of this magnitude just doesn't calculate correctly.


As far as we know, nothing could be as we're told. Money, power, influences outside of our understanding are going on all day every day, and we're just a bunch of sheep when you consider how low on the power scale we really are. I mean c'mon, the guy that owned the Twin Towers took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on each building a month before 9/11. What the fuck? Not only did he renew that policy such a short time before, but went back into the paperwork and adjusted it to include 'terrorist attacks'.

the guy that owned the Twin Towers took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on each building a month before 9/11. What the fuck? Not only did he renew that policy such a short time before, but went back into the paperwork and adjusted it to include 'terrorist attacks'.

That's... suspicious. I say it was the Illuminati!

Fuck you. Illuminati is a joke created by paranoid anti-semetics.

I mean c'mon, the guy that owned the Twin Towers took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on each building a month before 9/11. What the fuck? Not only did he renew that policy such a short time before, but went back into the paperwork and adjusted it to include 'terrorist attacks'.

These kinds of claims require citation. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I find that hard to believe without some evidence.

I can agree with you, it's just completely speculation. That's the thing with conspiracies, there usually won't be any evidence to backup unsubstantiated claims, just opinions blown up to any unporportionate amount. The problem with conspiracies in general is people like the 'Zionist' group etc. can completely delegitimize any sort of relaistic argument made on the side of the conspiracy, when they start talking about free masons and the Illuminati controling the world's currency. It's a joke.

However, the insurance scheme was well documented and reported on, but the media never really looked into it as a whole.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/12/06/120...acescan06.html

All of the buildings at the World Trade Center, including buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5, were destroyed beyond repair on September 11, 2001 (see September 11 attacks) as a result of Islamist terrorists crashing large jet airliners into the Twin Towers, and the ensuing fires and building collapses. After a protracted dispute with insurers over the amount of coverage available for rebuilding World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5, a series of court decisions determined that a maximum of $4.55 billion was payable and settlements were reached with the insurers in 2007.The money is being used to rebuild.

I can agree with you, it's just completely speculation. That's the thing with conspiracies, there usually won't be any evidence to backup unsubstantiated claims, just opinions blown up to any unporportionate amount. The problem with conspiracies in general is people like the 'Zionist' group etc. can completely delegitimize any sort of relaistic argument made on the side of the conspiracy, when they start talking about free masons and the Illuminati controling the world's currency. It's a joke. However, the insurance scheme was well documented and reported on, but the media never really looked into it as a whole. http://www.forbes.com/2004/12/06/120...acescan06.html

You're referring to something completely different. There was a disagreement whether or not the attacks should count as a single occurrence or two separate occurrences (which would therefore allow two separate claims.) Nowhere in the article does it say anything remotely close to "the guy that owned the Twin Towers took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on each building a month before 9/11" or that he "went back into the paperwork and adjusted it to include 'terrorist attacks'."

The buildings were insured, yes; I don't see an issue with that. There was a dispute over whether the attacks counted as one claim or two; this also seems reasonable. So other than those two facts, you're basically making a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.

Okay, I can see where I left out the context. Here.

http://www.historycommons.org/contex...riskassessment



(Before July 24, 2001): Risk Assessment Identifies Aircraft Striking WTC as One of the ‘Maximum Foreseeable Losses’

A property risk assessment report is prepared for Silverstein Properties before it acquires the lease for the World Trade Center (see July 24, 2001). It identifies the scenario of an aircraft hitting one of the WTC towers as one of the “maximum foreseeable losses.” The report says, “This scenario is within the realm of the possible, but highly unlikely.” Further details of the assessment, such as who prepared it, are unreported.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/MediaUpdate...port051303.pdf

July 24, 2001: World Trade Center Ownership Changes Hands for the First Time

Real estate development and investment firm Silverstein Properties and real estate investment trust Westfield America Inc. finalize a deal worth $3.2 billion to purchase a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center. The agreement covers the Twin Towers, World Trade Center Buildings 4 and 5 (two nine-story office buildings), and about 425,000 square feet of retail space.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/27/ny...de-center.html

September 10, 2001: Anti-Terrorism Meeting at WTC on 9/11 Is Canceled

Silverstein Properties, Larry Silverstein’s company which took over the lease of the WTC weeks earlier (see July 24, 2001), has a meeting planned for the morning of 9/11 in it’s temporary offices on the 88th floor of the WTC North Tower, along with Port Authority officials. It is to discuss what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. However, this evening the meeting is canceled because one participant cannot attend

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/bu...t-damages.html

August 23, 2001: Former FBI Al-Qaeda Expert Begins Job as Head of Security at the WTC

John O’Neill begins his new job as head of security at the WTC. O’Neill had been the special agent in charge of the FBI’s National Security Division in New York, and was the bureau’s top expert on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. -He’d left his job with the FBI just the day before (see August 22, 2001). His friend Jerome Hauer, who is the former head of New York’s Office of Emergency Management, had found him the job at the World Trade Center. Developer Larry Silverstein, who recently took over the lease of the WTC (see July 24, 2001), had been highly impressed with O’Neill but insisted he start in the post no later than the first week of September, when his firm Silverstein Properties is set to assume control of the buildings. O’Neill had agreed to this.

Look. Like I said, i'm not trying to sound like a truther. I'm just not sure I believe what i'm told, is all. There are many peices to this puzzle, and always have been, and I try to just sort it all out among my own scatterbrain to try and make sense of it. Will anyone ever know the absolute 100% truth behind 9/11 and all parties involved? Absolutely not. Are there things our militar/government knew about before the attacks? Positively so, but to what extent?

It's just fishy to me.

And we'll throw this in just for fun, to show the character of Silverstein:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/ny...uild.html?_r=1

Okay, I can see where I left out the context. Here. http://www.historycommons.org/contex...riskassessment (Before July 24, 2001): Risk Assessment Identifies Aircraft Striking WTC as One of the ‘Maximum Foreseeable Losses’ http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/MediaUpdate...port051303.pdf July 24, 2001: World Trade Center Ownership Changes Hands for the First Time http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/27/ny...de-center.html September 10, 2001: Anti-Terrorism Meeting at WTC on 9/11 Is Canceled http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/bu...t-damages.html August 23, 2001: Former FBI Al-Qaeda Expert Begins Job as Head of Security at the WTC Look. Like I said, i'm not trying to sound like a truther. I'm just not sure I believe what i'm told, is all. There are many peices to this puzzle, and always have been, and I try to just sort it all out among my own scatterbrain to try and make sense of it. Will anyone ever know the absolute 100% truth behind 9/11 and all parties involved? Absolutely not. Are there things our militar/government knew about before the attacks? Positively so, but to what extent? It's just fishy to me. And we'll throw this in just for fun, to show the character of Silverstein: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/ny...uild.html?_r=1

That does sounds pretty fishy, but it's still all circumstantial.

Regardless of what you're arguing, you are showing a clear bias, which undermines your argument. If you had started with your most recent post, it would have been received a lot differently. When you throw out "facts" without anything to back them up, you show that you obviously haven't done fact checking yourself, which ultimately indicates that you're jumping to conclusions and reveals your bias. When you use misinformation like that to argue something that you believe, it indicates that you don't have anything real to use to win people to your side, and it really makes you no better than a politician.

I don't necessarily disagree with you though, and it's definitely not beyond belief that some rich guy would do something evil to make money.