The collapse of Solomon Brothers' building on 911.

Furthermore, NIST have refused to allow their scientific research to be available for external scrutiny.  As one eminent scientist observed "science is never secret, science isn't science unless it's made public and open for criticism."

I think this building had FBI offices and other goverment agencys. On the morning of 9/11 the building pretty empty and firefighters reported there was very little files/paperwork found at the scene when searchs started after the falling of the building.

All the empirical evidence suggests a controlled demolition and yet such an event, then and now the most likely hypothesis, was never even considered by NIST in its official investigation.

When Larry Silverstein said 'pull it'... what could he have meant?

9/11 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover-Up Wide Open

Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo talks to Rudy Dent, 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD, about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws

120 miles per hour and commandeered a mail truck.
I'm reporting him.

If you love babies and granny and apple pie and puppie dogs, you will never never never ever question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-wXcJA-et0

Killed 10,000 of their own people to deliberately start a war with Iraq murdering over a million children,makes our disgusting pervetted elms house blues guests almost pale into insignificance!!

Good morning everyone.

If anyone who endorses the official version of events concerning WTC 7 (collapsing due to fire) happens to be looking in on this thread, it would be most interesting to learn of their views on the series of short videos linked below.  The three clips are only eleven, five and ten minutes long respectively and are the work of a high school physics teacher named David Chandler.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXZnvn7O2NY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYR9Xvo3Ofw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vh1GjMdLyU


Mr Chandler managed to gain entry to a NIST technical briefing and ask their lead investigator, Dr Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, and his colleague, Dr John Gross, a question about the collapse of the Solomon Brothers' building (otherwise known as WTC 7).  The query concerned one of the most basic aspects of physical science, a subject in which both gentlemen undoubtedly excel and are highly qualified to discuss.  All the more perplexing, then, that they should become confused, stumble over their words and generally prevaricate about nothing at all whilst looking decidedly uncomfortable.  Please give the recordings a quick glance if you can, if anything has a chance to change a person's mind on the veracity of the official report this will be it.

There's the problem right there. People don't just desire certainty. They demand it. Shiit happens. The problem is that we go from a simple and probably logical assertion that explanations for some of the things which happened on that day may be wrong to clowns like that nutter giggling lunatic frothing at the mouth accusing the Yanks of bringing down the towers to get rid of Saddam. You just can't reason with people like that.

To give you a brief summary of Mr Chandler's videos, he queried NIST's assertion that WTC 7 collapsed at a velocity forty percent slower than free fall.  He reminded them of one or two basic physical formulae which, beyond doubt, proved that the descent was actually far quicker, hence their evident discomfort.  Eight months later NIST were forced to publish an updated report, acknowledging the fact that building seven did indeed drop at free fall speed. 

This is quite an astonishing retraction when one considers its implications.  A free fall collapse means all the steel supports of the tower's substructure failed simultaneously, an event only conceivable with controlled implosion.  Somebody, somewhere, pushed a button.

Who or why would be conjecture on my part and I'm disinclined to stray into that area.  How anyone can doubt the evidence of their own eyes, however, or the fundamental physical laws underpinning that evidence continues to astound me.

gosh, a high school teacher you say, at least you're not referencing your cat, or the voices in your head.

`the reason people cling desperately to these idiotic theories is for reasons of political dogma, to accept that islamic arabs did this act of genocide is to refute the religious belief that the white man in the west is to blame for every evil act in the world and that the socialists and multi cultures need to replace it.
They have non choice but to cling to this illogical fantasy as the only other option is to accept they've lived a life of delusion.

I think Pokermonster accepts he's lived a life of delusion but I'm sure he'll appreciate your efforts to educate him. We're lucky to have you.

Off topic Pokermonster and I know you like to keep these threads rigidly to discussions regarding WTC7, but did you see the recent documentary regarding the collapse of the twin towers?
The theory concerns the explosive properties of aluminium when heated to a certain temperature and posited that with over 90 tons of the stuff deposited by the planes in either tower there was more than enough explosive force to cause the collapse of those towers. Seemed pretty plausible. And to my mind more likely than pre-planned controlled demolition of those two buildings.

Good afternoon, Desmond.  I hope you are well, sir.

I just caught the last half of that documentary, which is annoying as it looked interesting.  From what I saw, I'd have to agree with you in that the two chemists' theories concerning explosive aluminium seemed plausible and their scientific reasoning sound.  That said, I still contend any such detonation could not cause the total and symmetrical demolition of the twin towers; massive damage and partial collapse of the upper stories undoubtedly, but not the systematic destruction we all witnessed.  And, of course, no aircraft hit WTC 7.

Apologies for being rather brief in my reply, but it's via a mobile phone.  Hope to chat again later.

Damn you Apple and your unwanted autocorrect!  When I type STOREYS that's how I'd like it to stay thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Polybot, only just noticed your post of this morning.

I'm intrigued to learn exactly what you find idiotic about David Chandler's conclusions, especially as NIST themselves belatedly concurred after an initial denial of the physical evidence concerning free fall velocity.  As the official commissioners seem reluctant to expand further on this inconvenient truth, however, perhaps you could enlighten the forum regards fire causing the simultaneous failure of every steel support column?  As to Mr Chandler's occupation as a high school physics teacher, it was good enough to get him into the briefing and bamboozle the lead investigators so any implied belittling of the gentlman's credentials is as unmerited as it is contemptible.

Finally, I do not own a cat and heard nary a squeak from the voices since mowing down a bus queue in 1986.

PM I've taken an interest in all of this since around 2006/7 when I had too much time on my hands. It's perplexing to say the least and is worthy of a constructive debate, however; every time a thread such as this appears it is filled with those who claim to 'know' differently. I don't know any different from anyone else but like you, I'd like a bit more exposure from those in the know.

Hello again, Aspro.  I hope you are well, sir.

It is also frustrating to often be tarred with the same brush reserved for those who propound the more outlandish of suppositions, holographic aircraft and the like.  The fact remains that WTC 7 collapsed at free fall speed.  For such an event to occur every single support column must have failed simultaneously.  A failure, moreover, that was not just a compromise of the steel's integrity by way of weakness or buckling, but a complete removal of its load-bearing capability.  All of them.  At the same time.

All good this end thanks PM.

As I said earlier in this thread; if Silverstein referred to 'pulling' the building what other conclusion can be drawn?

Any chance it was built by the mafia and they cut a few corners in terms of costs? would be a few who wouldn't want that to come out.

CIA WhistleBlower Susan Lindauer EXPOSES Everything! "Extreme Prejudice"
The Summer of 2001,Former Congressional staffer and CIA
Asset Susan Lindauer warned the Government about a major
attack involving the World Trade Center.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA
Don't shoot the messenger !

9/11: Best Physical Evidence for Explosives
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-KosTYUs4I
Don't shoot the messenger !

Fact -
Weapons grade "Nanothermitic materials" and their products were identified and found in abundance in the WTC dust.

Apologies if this link has been previously posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM but
BBC did a reasonably unbiased documentary debunking conspiracy theories a few years ago; WTC 7 - BBC The Third Tower - Conspiracy Files.
An hour long.

Saw it Charlie - did make me laugh! The only debunking theory I've ever given respect to is one over the moon landing - It gave me cause for doubting the CT's

lots of compelling evidence and cover-up. What always gets me is there must have been plenty of people on the inside, it's hard to believe none of them have spilled the beans or been caught out

Thank you for the links, gentlemen, I'll watch them all this evening.

PM even though you've probably got enough links to watch tonight I'm still going to put another one up, you could watch it some other time.
This is   '9/11 - Anatomy of a Great Deception' a well put together film by businessman-turned-filmmaker David Hooper with his  investigation into the collapse of all 3 towers.

A line from the film  about WTC 7 that made me laugh was - "Why do demolition companies even exist if you can just light a few random fires and wait for an implosion". 
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Q5eZhCPuc

Cheers, MMH, your link has been saved and I'll be sure to watch in the near future.

Watched the video last night, MMH.  I'd seen ninety-five percent of the material before, but thought the chap presented it well.  The piece that stuck in my mind was the policeman's photograph (released after a FOI request) of an explosion on the ground or sub levels of the south tower a few moments before it collapsed.  That was certainly new to me and very interesting.

Getting back to the Solomon Brothers' Building (WTC 7) and whether or not it was deliberately imploded, I find it incredible and depressing in equal measure that folks who question the official explanation of a fire-induced failure are labelled as imbeciles, or conspiracy theorists in its most pejorative sense, by those that chose to ignore the evidence of their own eyes.

1. The building collapsed at free fall speed.  This was initially disputed by NIST but later accepted in their final report.

2. The building dropped symmetrically, the top floor remaining parallel to the ground as it fell.

The two points above, which are undisputed facts, can only occur if all the steel supports are severed (not buckled or weakened) simultaneously and such an event is only feasible via a controlled demolition.

Probably the most professional of the debunking websites is www.debunking911.com.  Whilst they naturally concur with NIST's fire-induced theory regards WTC 7, they focus most of their argument on structural damage caused by the north tower's collapse and Larry Silverstein's rather ambiguous "decided to pull it" quote.  It's all very well written and even plausible to a point, but they do not tackle the inconvenient truth of the two red sentences in my previous post.

Whilst I continue to harbour strong suspicions concerning the manner in which the twin towers fell, I have no doubts whatsoever that The Solomon Brothers' Building was imploded via a controlled demolition.  There is simply no other explanation that bears any sort of scientific scrutiny.

Pokermonster have a look at the controlled explosions of the Red Road flats (Glasgow) and give me your comments.
Watched on tv but hardly fell as I expected given what I've read on here.
Genuine request btw and not at the windup. TIA.

Pokermonster - I have no wish to get involved in this debate, but not being able to spell Salomon doesn't help your claim to be a credible reporter of fact re this incident.

Akabula.

That looks like one of the many botched demolitions to me, sir.  Several of the lower floors (the ones behind the black skirting) appear to have been blown out, resulting in the partial free fall collapse witnessed, but the upper storeys of two of the towers didn't crumble upon impact as expected.

Blackburn.

Making spelling mistakes is a personal bugbear of mine, in this instance it was a case of actually believing that the name was Solomon and not Salomon rather than a simple typo or autocorrect error.  In that regard you have me, sir, but to hold this fault up as a reason to discount the rest of my argument is a feeble excuse.  I'm not surprised you are disinclined to debate.

That tells me pm that you cannot say for certain whether explosives were used or not at 9/11.

Blackbarn!  That one was autocorrect. 

Why is that, Akabula.?

Things can stray from the norm, even in nature.

It seems to me that examples such as those reinforce rather than belittle the explosives argument.  It shows how tough it can be to reduce a building to rubble within its own footprint, even for experts.

Sorry, sir, I cannot accept that as a reasonable argument.  Some things may stray from the norm, but not a building (or anything else for that matter) falling through the path of most resistance.  It is simply not credible.

Yes but there are experts and then there is God. Not that I believe in him though.
I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that explosives were used at 9/11.
and even if they were then who's to say who put them there. Could easily have been the terrorists.

I am always careful not to speculate on who was responsible, Akabula.  As you say, such a claim would be conjecture on my part.  I contend that the two undisputed facts outlined below, however, together constitute sufficient proof to state with absolute certainty that explosives were present in WTC 7.  It is the only credible explanation for all the columns being severed simultaneously.

1. The building collapsed at free fall speed.

2. The building collapsed symmetrically.

Note also the ad hominem stance taken by Blackbarn and many others, I have found it to be rather typical when discussing this subject.  That, in itself, is telling.

I've seen that explained away in a tv documentary.
One expert says one thing the next expert disputes it.
Life goes on and us amateurs are none the wiser.
God knows how many people were involved if it was an inside job.
You'd have thought one would have cracked by now.

If you could furnish me with a link to where those two points (in red) are explained away, sir, I would be most obliged.

One quick question, sir:  Did you manage to find the time to watch the three short clips linked in my earlier post?

Repeated (with my spelling mistake corrected).

If anyone who endorses the official version of events concerning WTC 7 (collapsing due to fire) happens to be looking in on this thread, it would be most interesting to learn of their views on the series of short videos linked below.  The three clips are only eleven, five and ten minutes long respectively and are the work of a high school physics teacher named David Chandler.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXZnvn7O2NY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYR9Xvo3Ofw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vh1GjMdLyU


Mr Chandler managed to gain entry to a NIST technical briefing and ask their lead investigator, Dr Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, and his colleague, Dr John Gross, a question about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers' building (otherwise known as WTC 7).  The query concerned one of the most basic aspects of physical science, a subject in which both gentlemen undoubtedly excel and are highly qualified to discuss.  All the more perplexing, then, that they should become confused, stumble over their words and generally prevaricate about nothing at all whilst looking decidedly uncomfortable.  Please give the recordings a quick glance if you can, if anything has a chance to change a person's mind on the veracity of the official report this will be it.

The sad truth is, we will never really get to the bottom of all this, too much money at stake.

I said I watched it on tv but I'm sure there will be a link somewhere.
Too many people involved if true yet no one has opened up.
It's like those who accuse Madeleine mcCanns parents and their friends of being complicit in her disappearance.
As was once said a secret is only safe as long as only one person knows it.

I tend to agree about that, SH, certainly with regards to folks of our age anyway.  Perhaps some time in the future, however, the scientific facts will cease to be ignored.

If it's the same documentary I saw, Akabula, it most certainly did not explain away the two (red) facts posted above.  It mostly addressed NIST's assertion of fire-induced collapse; the structural damage caused by the falling twin towers; the premature BBC report of the building's demise; and Mr Silverstein's ambiguous "decided to pull it" quote.  Their reasoning in these issues was plausible to a degree but, in my view, straw man arguments against the inconvenient truth of symmetrical free fall.

I can't believe that in the face of overwhelming evidence that points to at the very least a cover up we still have people who accept the 'official' explanation (which is an insult to anyone with half a brain).

Scientific facts
No presented to us as facts.
Enough experts have condemned all of the allegations as rubbish or speculation.
The net was a wonderful concept but is now used to confuse and cause doubt.
I've viewed loads of clips on here both for and against a conspiracy.
I've come down on the side of it purely being the work of terrorists.
With very few exceptions the families of those who died are of the same mind as me.

How many people are involved in this cover up and what are they covering up?

I fear that the sad truth is, Petrus, most folks remain unaware about WTC 7's collapse or simply do not care.

Overwhelming evidence.
All taken from the web and all accepted without question as fact.
I'm off to bed so goodnight guys.

The two points I posted in red are facts, Akabula.  What do you find laughable about them, sir?

You see, sir, implying something is laughable in my posts is entirely without foundation, an ad hominem stance taken by so many who cannot argue against this inconvenient truth.  You mock my asseration about symmetrcal free fall, even though your own eyes corroborate the fact.

And to state that my beliefs all come from the web is also untrue.

It is palpably you, sir, who are accepting things without question.

Pokermonster
12 Oct 15 00:55
Joined: 14 Sep 04
| Topic/replies: 8,788 | Blogger: Pokermonster's blog
I fear that the sad truth is, Petrus, most folks remain unaware about WTC 7's collapse or simply do not care.


I'm supposed to be studying for an exam but I saw this thread and watched the three Chandler videos and read the comments. I went to the fridge to get another beer and my room mate asked me how much studying I'd done.  I told him none and that I'd been revisiting the whole WTC7 thing.

"What's building 7?" he asked

"You're joking" came my reply...but he wasn't. I explained a bit about it and he was unaware that there even was such a building let alone its fate.

I'm reasonably sure that none of my friends would be aware of the Salomon Building, Petrus, and certainly wouldn't care much anyway.  Even in New York, where I live for part of the year, it's hardly a common topic for debate.

It's a social paradigm that most folks are of a mindset to question the accepted stance in this matter would reveal them to be a fruitloop.  Worse yet, they then compound the insult by ridiculing those who do strive to highlight the obvious scientific flaws in the official report. 

As mentioned before, note the ad hominem approach taken by many on this forum.  As some on here will testify, I am a New York State resident, I also hold a physics degree.  Nothing remotely special in any of that, of course, but it should at least mean my opinion is as valid as the next man.  And yet, on this thread alone, I have been accused of hearing voices; having no mind of my own by regurgitating anything I read on the internet; and being unaware of what is or is not scientific fact.  It astonishes and depresses me in equal measure.

Anyway, time for bed.  Good night, gentlemen.

It is a morbidly fascinating subject.  I don't really want to be interested but I am despite myself.  Perhaps a lot of people are like that but don't want to admit it?  Having looked at all the videos I'm probably a covert on the whole third building thing.  Like others I didn't know about it until late on and the argument put forward by the 'truthers' as they call themselves seems compelling on this subject if not so much the rest.  It looks just like a demolition in the videos, not that that proves anything, but the things poker keeps saying about how it fell down must be hard to counter because the posters who try just insult him or try to change the subject to something else.  My biggest problem with the government killing its own people iswhy would they do it?!!!

To give them justified presence in the middle east as well as developing the god machine a tad

Good evening, Torque.  I hope you are well, sir.

The reason I try not to stray into the areas of who or why is because it would just be conjecture, I have my suspicions like everyone else, of course, but no conclusive evidence.  With regards the actual collapse of WTC 7, however, the definitive proof is there for all to see.  It dropped symmetrically at free fall speed, meaning all the core support columns were severed simultaneously. 

This is an irrefutable fact and begs the question what can compromise the steel in that manner?  All of the columns and all at the same time!  Fire couldn't do it.  The external damage didn't do it.  The reason it looked exactly like the controlled demolition you observed is because that is the only credible explanation.