Here is what I say about WTC7:
-- I always thought Silverstein's "pull it" comment was bizarre and confusing and not really a smoking gun (though possibly disinfo)
-- yes, WTC7 WAS damaged from the fall of WTC1 and was on fire
-- the extent of the damage is unclear and photos showing the damage more clearly have been with-held from the public for some reason
-- there is no evidence for massive raging fires at WTC7, there were hardly any fires on the north face of the building
-- the big question is: how can asymmetrical fires and asymmetrical structural damage cause a perfectly symmetrical free-fall collapse?
--even NIST says they don't know exactly why WTC7 fell
-- NIST says that WTC7 fell at 13 seconds not 7 seconds. But this timing is only because the penthouse structure of WTC7 took several seconds to collapse. In fact, the main structure of WTC7 fell at essentially free fall speed: 7 seconds
-- the fall of WTC7 was much too smooth and controlled to be from a building completely breaking apart and collapsing from gravity
-- the fireproofing of WTC7 was not damaged so why should the fires have caused the collapse?
-- whatever happened at WTC7 probably wasn't purely conventional demolition, and some sort of beam weapon may have been used like at WTC1 and WTC2
-- firemen saying that WTC7 was going to come down may have been saying that after seeing what happened to WTC1 and WTC2. It doesn't imply specific knowledge of demolition. On the other hand, the firemen's statements do not RULE OUT demolition. The statements are ambiguous, just like Silverstein's comments.
-- it seems quite possible that WTC7 was somewhat unstable and that firemen were indeed worried that it would collapse, and a similar device that was used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2 was used to bring down WTC7.
-- WTC7 had several suspicious tenants such as the CIA and Secret Service, not to mention various financial services companies, that may have wanted to destroy evidence
-- If WTC7 was in fact highly valuable, why wasn't more effort made to save it?
-- questioning the WTC7 collapse is not kooky, nor is questioning anything else about 9/11, especially since the bulk of the evidence implies 9/11 was an inside job and a huge fraud on the American people
-- yes, WTC7 WAS damaged from the fall of WTC1 and was on fire
-- the extent of the damage is unclear and photos showing the damage more clearly have been with-held from the public for some reason
-- there is no evidence for massive raging fires at WTC7, there were hardly any fires on the north face of the building
-- the big question is: how can asymmetrical fires and asymmetrical structural damage cause a perfectly symmetrical free-fall collapse?
--even NIST says they don't know exactly why WTC7 fell
-- NIST says that WTC7 fell at 13 seconds not 7 seconds. But this timing is only because the penthouse structure of WTC7 took several seconds to collapse. In fact, the main structure of WTC7 fell at essentially free fall speed: 7 seconds
-- the fall of WTC7 was much too smooth and controlled to be from a building completely breaking apart and collapsing from gravity
-- the fireproofing of WTC7 was not damaged so why should the fires have caused the collapse?
-- whatever happened at WTC7 probably wasn't purely conventional demolition, and some sort of beam weapon may have been used like at WTC1 and WTC2
-- firemen saying that WTC7 was going to come down may have been saying that after seeing what happened to WTC1 and WTC2. It doesn't imply specific knowledge of demolition. On the other hand, the firemen's statements do not RULE OUT demolition. The statements are ambiguous, just like Silverstein's comments.
-- it seems quite possible that WTC7 was somewhat unstable and that firemen were indeed worried that it would collapse, and a similar device that was used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2 was used to bring down WTC7.
-- WTC7 had several suspicious tenants such as the CIA and Secret Service, not to mention various financial services companies, that may have wanted to destroy evidence
-- If WTC7 was in fact highly valuable, why wasn't more effort made to save it?
-- questioning the WTC7 collapse is not kooky, nor is questioning anything else about 9/11, especially since the bulk of the evidence implies 9/11 was an inside job and a huge fraud on the American people
posted by spooked at 5:16 AM
0 comments
