WTC Building 7 aka Salomon Brothers Building

[Xelador]

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/102-how-did-they-know-examining-the-foreknowledge-of-building-7-destruction
 

 

 

Larry Silverstein says, and I quote - "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure if they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is 'pull it' - and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

1.) Fire departments don't demolish buildings
2.) It takes weeks, sometimes months to wire-up and take down a building using explosives

Official story as to why the building collapsed, from NIST -
 

 

[wideawake]

I forget on which video I heard the following.

There was some major upgrading work planned for WTC7 prior to 9/11 and the contractors needed the technical drawings to accomplish their tasks. According to that lady, everybody knew there were explosives set throughout the building and they would've had to work around that. They never got to do the work as 9/11 happened first. 

I wonder if there was any truth to that...

[Xelador]

9/11 explained in 5 minutes -
 

 

[Hegel Schmegel]

If I were allowed only three pieces of evidence to present to a normie that 9/11 was an inside job, the 'Building 7' collapse would be my first case exhibit. 

 

There's the whole anomaly involving a TV reporter prematurely announcing that WTC-7 had collapsed; the footage of which has been conveniently lost (or so we are told).

 

No hijacked plane ever hit this building and yet down it went, not in the morning when the other towers fell, but late in the afternoon, and supposedly all on its own. Exactly how this extraordinary feat was accomplished has been speculated; just don't tell me that this hypothetical fifth plane came equipped with an 'invisible shield' capability as I'm not buying it. More believable is that a desert chieftan situated overseas simply aimed and blew into his pea-shooter.

 

You have to be more than just uninformed -- you have to be immensely stupid to believe 9/11 was not an inside job.

 

Good lord, My Pet Goat is a damn good children's story, no doubt about that, but not so important that one cannot interrupt its read to attend to urgent presidential matters. Dubya's suspicious reaction while at the Florida elementary school would also make my list of exhibits.

 

Yet by far it's the collapse of WTC-7 that to me is the smoking gun pointing to a partially domestic conspiracy.

 

That this building was not sabotaged by remote Sabbatians appears rather obvious.

 

Clearly, I'm not one of those of the opinion that there were no hijackers involved in 9/11, as all the calls made by passengers aboard these flights to friends and relatives certainly seem proven to have been genuine.

 

More ridiculous a theory than this is the one in which no planes are believed to have been involved; such nonsense is patently obvious disinfo designed to discredit all 9/11 skeptics/critics and to paint them all as delusional fools.

 

I do not deny that directed energy weapons exist as I'm sure they do, but I don't think they had any part in bringing down the Salomon Brothers Building or the twin towers, as the case has strongly been made that controlled demolition was involved.

 

I realize that the favorite bogeyman of many on this forum are the Sabbatians, when little attention has been given to fascists belonging to the Fourth Reich possibly having ultimately masterminded this false flag event...a Fourth Reich, by the way, whose predecessor (the Third) were known to share many commonalities and to be in close alliance with Islamofascists in the years leading up to Pearl Harbor.

[legion]

On 7/12/2021 at 3:04 AM, Xelador said:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/102-how-did-they-know-examining-the-foreknowledge-of-building-7-destruction
 

 

 

Larry Silverstein says, and I quote - "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure if they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is 'pull it' - and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

1.) Fire departments don't demolish buildings
2.) It takes weeks, sometimes months to wire-up and take down a building using explosives

Official story as to why the building collapsed, from NIST -
 

 

 

A reminder of the smoking gun.. 

 

[screamingeagle]

oh ,it's the Lucky Larry,not sure how much he knew,at least he was told not to go in that day

[sickofallthebollocks]

Check the 2nd vid, filmed on an old digital camera showing the actual mini controlled explosions seconds before the collapse of the third buildin gknown as WTC 7 :

 

[Arnie]

1 hour ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Check the 2nd vid, filmed on an old digital camera showing the actual mini controlled explosions seconds before the collapse of the third buildin gknown as WTC 7 :

 

 

I checked the second "old footage" and discovered somebody had doctored the actual real footage. A hoax.

[zarkov]

 

CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC 7 On 9/11’

https://principia-scientific.com/cia-agent-confesses-on-deathbed-we-blew-up-wtc-7-on-9-11/

 

 

[zArk]

do you think they set the bombs on 9/11 or the bombs were in the building prior to 9/11?

why didnt they blow wtc 7 in the morning with wtc 1 and 2 i.e did the charges fail to go off or did they deliberately wait till the afternoon?

 

 

 

[lake]

7 minutes ago, zArk said:

do you think they set the bombs on 9/11 or the bombs were in the building prior to 9/11?

why didnt they blow wtc 7 in the morning with wtc 1 and 2 i.e did the charges fail to go off or did they deliberately wait till the afternoon?

 

 

 

 

What have you got except for the one video you promote?

 

Really what proof of anything you state have you to show?

[Beaujangles]

4 hours ago, zArk said:

do you think they set the bombs on 9/11 or the bombs were in the building prior to 9/11?

why didnt they blow wtc 7 in the morning with wtc 1 and 2 i.e did the charges fail to go off or did they deliberately wait till the afternoon?

 

 

 

 

My guess would be that they had this all in place before  Sept 11th 2001.

 

Another guess would be that they had got all three buildings ready to implode, but something caused the detonation of Building 7 to implode later, maybe a time problem on device or  an oversight on the part of those placing the detonators. Maybe the Newsreel was recorded in advance. Hard to say. I've always thought it rather strange how with these 'flag events' always seem to have strategically placed people with a camera and an excellent vantage point.

[Beaujangles]

On 9/12/2022 at 3:47 PM, Arnie said:

 

I checked the second "old footage" and discovered somebody had doctored the actual real footage. A hoax.

 

....and how did you 'discover' that? Did they give you the original? 

[peter]

4 hours ago, Beaujangles said:

Another guess would be that they had got all three buildings ready to implode, but something caused the detonation of Building 7 to implode later, maybe a time problem on device or  an oversight on the part of those placing the detonators. Maybe the Newsreel was recorded in advance. Hard to say. I've always thought it rather strange how with these 'flag events' always seem to have strategically placed people with a camera and an excellent vantage point.

Or maybe the operation was being run from building 7 and when it was over they had to get rid of the evidence

[zArk]

5 hours ago, peter said:

Or maybe the operation was being run from building 7 and when it was over they had to get rid of the evidence

 

 Thats been one of my thoughts yet the building images show substantial damage , it would be extremely risky for any operation to be run in that building.

 

i cant get away from the fact the building was dropped with such a pathetic reason which is in conflict with the video (the damaged building eventually collapsed through stuctural failure whereas the video suggests a perfect demolition)

 

also with the claimed damage to the building the bombs set would have been damaged making the perfect demolition impossible.

 

To bring down a damaged building in a controlled manner to prevent damage to adjacent buildings would require new surveys of the building . probably a couple of weeks, then getting in there to set the explosives.

 

if as @Beaujangles suggests the bombs went off late , the building wouldnt fall perfectly because of the damage (this is accepting the statements of damage and the images seen). there would be a high chance of adjacent buildings being damaged and the jig is up because the demolition, the charges/bombs would be spotted in front the worlds media.

Then silverstein says pull it, the bbc footage emerges and opportunist camera angles catch the 'out of control' demolition.

 

I find the entire scenario in stark contrast the earlier events which were controlled, mediated and precise.

 

 

[zArk]

14 hours ago, lake said:

 

What have you got except for the one video you promote?

 

Really what proof of anything you state have you to show?

 

Its the existing videos, the statements and the photos that conflict with each other causing me to conclude WTC 7 is a red herring.

 

as i have written in the other thread , there is no proof of anything that day. Its all part of the constructed war game.

 

 

 

 

[peter]

14 hours ago, zArk said:

also with the claimed damage to the building the bombs set would have been damaged making the perfect demolition impossible.

 

To bring down a damaged building in a controlled manner to prevent damage to adjacent buildings would require new surveys of the building . probably a couple of weeks, then getting in there to set the explosives.

So it seems you base all your assumptions on one video and your opinion with regards to the above statements,sorry but last time I looked an opinion is simply just that 

[peter]

19 hours ago, zArk said:

Its the existing videos, the statements and the photos that conflict with each other causing me to conclude WTC 7 is a red herring.

Maybe the apparent damage to building 7 was the red hearing, there is enough contention amongst the people that don't believe the official narrative at the present time and more will only  benefit the assholes that organized it

[zArk]

1 hour ago, peter said:

Maybe the apparent damage to building 7 was the red hearing, there is enough contention amongst the people that don't believe the official narrative at the present time and more will only  benefit the assholes that organized it

 

i guess some people are happy to eat the scraps from the table, some like to gorge on the buffet, but i aint gonna take a bite out of it.