The WTC 7 'red pill'
35 2017-06-16 by StrongerTogether1
We have video footage of a building collapsing in freefall without resistance and we're told by the government that it collapsed in freefall without resistance, due to fire. We have side by side comparisons with controlled demolitions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc) yet possibly the majority of human beings still believe the official story (https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2008/11/nist-releases-final-wtc-7-investigation-report) that was on the news and in all the papers and told to us by our elected and trusted leaders. Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based near Washington DC, concluded in its long-awaited report in 2008 that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse. That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm). Larry Silverstein owns all WTC buildings. Larry Silverstein told us that he designed a new WTC 7 in April 2000 (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/03/15/bombshell-larry/). The same man, admits he told firefighters to pull the building due to terrible loss of life, long after the people who could be evacuted were (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuFJbombRDk). The insurance policies for WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 and WTC5 had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. Silverstein has said in interviews that he usually spent his mornings in breakfast meetings at Windows on the World on top of the World Trade Center North Tower, and with new tenants in the building. However, the morning of September 11, 2001, his wife insisted that he attend a medical appointment. Due to the appointment, he escaped almost certain death. All of the buildings at the World Trade Center, including buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were destroyed or damaged beyond repair on September 11, 2001. 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.
I think WTC 7 is important, it is a massive mistake made by the people responsible and we need to push to bring them to justice.
21 comments
n/a Christopher_Rofot 2017-06-16
Not to mention the BBC reporter saying Building 7 fell with it clearly standing in the background
https://youtu.be/ltP2t9nq9fI
This stuff would be laughable if it was not so sad.
Anyone who believes the "official story" of 9/11 probably still also believes in the Easter Bunny.
n/a StrongerTogether1 2017-06-16
It's as almost as if they knew it was going to happen...
Seriously though, the Easter Bunny might have more credibility.
n/a blette 2017-06-16
Nice collection of the truth.
n/a yodabbadabbado 2017-06-16
that doesnt prove anything. when a building is brought down with explosives, the core support of the building is taken out, then if falls. if the core support of building 7 gave way due to fire, or explosives, its going to fall the same rate no matter how its core support was destroyed.
n/a StrongerTogether1 2017-06-16
No other steel structured building has ever collapsed due to fire, how is that possible when some buildings have literally burned for days and the structure has remained completely intact?
n/a yodabbadabbado 2017-06-16
https://www.jensenhughes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/White_Paper_Historical_Survey_Building_Collapse_NIST_JBeitel-NIwankiw_OCT-2006.pdf
steel many buildings have had floors collapse due to fire. building 7 had much of its structure strength dependent on its outside wall. when the towers fell, its outer support was damaged.
building 7 and the two wtc centers were designed differently than your common steel building. they had big pen floors, this design was its flaw.
show me a building designed like those 3 towers that has caught out fire and received damage from its core support from debris or from a commercial airline traveling plus 500mph and then we can talk.
until then, you are comparing apples to oranges.
n/a StrongerTogether1 2017-06-16
A side by side comparison with a controlled explosion tells me that it was a controlled explosion. I'm comparing apples with apples. The buildings were literally designed to withstand a plane crashing into them. Why didn't it fall left or right? Top physicists are saying it was a controlled demolition. Also, don't you think it's fishy Larry Silverstein said he told firefighters to pull the building?
n/a yodabbadabbado 2017-06-16
a side by side comparison of two buildings with structures that have completely differnt designs falling down doesnt tell you anything.
Newton's second law of motion can be formally stated as follows: The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.
it doesnt matter if the building was taken out with explosives it collapsed due to fire, if the structure support gives way, that building is going to fall at the rate the laws of physics allows. depending on the mass of the building at the net force( gravity and resistance) determines how fast it will fall.
it you have a building standing up, how you blow out the first floor with explosives, its going to fall down the same speed as it the first floor gave way due to fire, or it gave way due to pulling it with cables, or it gave way because a truck drove it into. you cant ignore the laws of physics on this one.
physicists are not demolition experts, not are they structural engineer experts. some physicists are saying it was a controlled demolition.. thats some peoples opinon. there are other engineers, demolition experts, architects who agree with that report.
if you actually do your research, you will find plenty of videos that show the center of building 7 giving away first. like i said, building 7 had a inner and outer support structure. if you watch those videos all over youtube, you can see the penthouse on the roof falling before the rest of the building. the center support structure gave way the pulled the rest of building ontop of it.
buildings tend to fall straight down unless they have something pushing it over or the structure gave way in a certain way that would cause it to fall down at an angle.
whats your evidence that it was an order to bring it down and now evacuate?
n/a StrongerTogether1 2017-06-16
The side by side comparison tells me that the buildings key structural components all gave way at the exact same time, thus allowing 2.25 seconds of complete free fall with no resistence, while the building collapsed into it's own footprint. Again, no other building has ever collapsed due to fire being the primary cause and the fire would never have burnt hot enogh to cause any damage to or weaken the steel used in the structure. It was not an order to evacuate, he said pull 'it' meaning the building, don't forget before that he claimed billions after all of this.
Here is a website (www.ae911truth.org/signatures/) where you can find thousands of architects and engineers who are demanding a new investigation into the destruction of all 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.
n/a yodabbadabbado 2017-06-16
I you are standing on a chair, and I kick this chair out from underneath you feet, please explain to me how you are going to fall fast or slower if I pull that chair out from underneath your feet with a chain or by kicking it.
buildings have partially collapsed due to fire. let me rind you, this building had its out core support damaged by the debris from the twin towers. you keep ignoring this.
just because a couple thousand architects and engineers disagree with the other THOUSANDS WHO AGREE, doesnt mean you are right.
you should try watching all the videos of building 7. the pent house ontop falls down first because the center collapses in it self then pulls the rest.
you are very ignorant of what actually happened and you are just repeating stuff you heard someone else say.
you have not done real research into this. you need to educate yourself on what actually happened to building 7 because you have no idea what oyu are talking about.
9/11 was a inside job, but that doesnt mean explosives were used.
where is your evidence that is a standard term to bring down a building? do you have old books stating this? any videos of demolition experts saying this? or are you just saying that was a term used to bring down a building because you heard someone else saying just that?
repeating what someone else told you is not EVIDENCE.
n/a dangerb407 2017-06-16
Disinfo dude!!! Did the "airplane" wings also penetrate the steel columns? If the wings were that heavy, how did the planes fly and how did they achieve the speed that they did. Stupid AF disinfo
n/a yodabbadabbado 2017-06-16
nothing i have stated has been disinfo. you must be talking about the retard.
n/a misto1481 2017-06-16
Didn't the fires that took down WTC 1 and 2 do so because they burned so hot from the jet fuel it caused the steel beams to melt? Where is the jet fuel in WTC 7 that caused the massive heat to bring down a building that was not even hit by a plane. C'mon, this isn't complicated. Controlled demolition all 3 buildings. Case closed.
n/a StrongerTogether1 2017-06-16
Your repeating your information for the NIST report, I'm using my own eyes and brain to try and piece this together. WTC 7 had already been completely evacuated, with no loss of life, prior to him saying pull it. Pull it refers to when the demolition crews actually pull down the building. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJI6YvK_TK0. Evacuations were already taking place, without him having to give the go ahead. There is clearly 2.25 seconds of freefall, I can see it with my own eyes. Can you show me evidence of these 'thousands' of architects and engineers who agree with the official story? Buildings may have partially collapsed due to fire, but to become the first building in history to be brought completely into its own footprint with the primary cause being fire and all steel structural supports failing at the same time thus allowing 2.25 seconds of freefall, that you can cleary see with your own eyes. If your saying buildings have partially collapsed due to fire and are comparing that to WTC 7 your comparing apples with oranges.
n/a yodabbadabbado 2017-06-16
buidling seven didnt fall down in 2.25 seconds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmL9F-TSIes
this video debunks your 2.25 theory
you dont have a clue what you are talking about
n/a StrongerTogether1 2017-06-16
No it didn't. It simply free fell for 2.25 seconds, not completely collapsed. That still doesn't mean that a steel structured building has ever collapsed, ever. Can you show me the list of thousands and thousands of engineers and architects who support the story? Or are you just going to discredit literally thousands of engineers and architects, who are putting their careers on the line in some cases, without a shred of evidence? Yeah, I know who I'm going to believe.
n/a misto1481 2017-06-16
They were designed to withstand multiple planes hitting them. Definitely a controlled demolition. Anyone who believes otherwise is either lying or can't spell IQ.
n/a sailorchubbybutt 2017-06-16
The folks interviewed on scene say they heard multiple explosions. Video has explosions heard in the background...free fall near perfect into its own footprint. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck.
n/a yodabbadabbado 2017-06-16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ_fFxBB4aY
this is a better video that shows the penthouse and center of the building collapsing first then rest of the building following shortly there after.
this proves you wrong on your 2.25 second theory.
you need to due more research.
n/a Turpekal_Thrizz 2017-06-16
I don't think anyone on this sub believes our government wasn't involved.
n/a StrongerTogether1 2017-06-16
No it didn't. It simply free fell for 2.25 seconds, not completely collapsed. That still doesn't mean that a steel structured building has ever collapsed, ever. Can you show me the list of thousands and thousands of engineers and architects who support the story? Or are you just going to discredit literally thousands of engineers and architects, who are putting their careers on the line in some cases, without a shred of evidence? Yeah, I know who I'm going to believe.