WTC7 — This is an Orange

Source: FromThe Trenches/YouTube
Published: Jan 17, 2018
Author: Anthony Lawson
Post Date: 2018-01-17 05:44:06 by Deckard
Views: 7172


Published on Dec 9, 2007

A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled demolition.

Post Comment   Private Reply

#1: A K A Stone    To: Deckard (#0)

It looks like a controlled demolition.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-17 07:18:12   Reply   Private Reply

#2: misterwhite    To: Deckard (#0)

"but the collapse looks very much like a controlled demolition."

That's true. It also "looks like" an alien spaceship could have fired disrupter beams at the base of the building. That's what it looks like.

However, with ZERO proof that this or anything else occurred, I'm going with the original 911 finding.

misterwhite posted on 2018-01-17 10:10:48   Reply   Private Reply

#3: A K A Stone    To: misterwhite (#2)

However, with ZERO proof that this or anything else occurred, I'm going with the original 911 finding.

The film is evidence. What other explanation exists?

A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-17 10:12:18   Reply   Private Reply

#4: misterwhite    To: A K A Stone (#3)

The film is evidence. What other explanation exists?

The film is evidence only of the building collapsing. We all agree the building collapsed.

If your explanation for that collapse is that it was a result of a controlled demolition, fine. But I'm going to need proof.

misterwhite posted on 2018-01-17 10:48:37   Reply   Private Reply

#5: A K A Stone    To: misterwhite (#4)

The proof is no building collapses like that without controlled taking out of support columns.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-17 10:51:55   Reply   Private Reply

#6: A Pole    To: misterwhite (#4)

If your explanation for that collapse is that it was a result of a controlled demolition, fine. But I'm going to need proof.

You are right . It could be a spontaneus combustion or meteorite.

A Pole posted on 2018-01-17 10:53:26   Reply   Private Reply

#7: misterwhite    To: A K A Stone (#5)

The proof is no building collapses like that without controlled taking out of support columns.

So you're saying that's the only way a building collapses "like that" -- a controlled demolition?

Obviously not, since it did collapse "like that" without a controlled demolition. Unless you have proof there was one.

misterwhite posted on 2018-01-17 12:53:29   Reply   Private Reply

#8: A K A Stone    To: misterwhite (#7)

The proof is in the manner it fell.

If you had proof otherwise you would post it. You don't so you just tell me to prove it. When the video already proved it.

Tell us how you think it collapsed.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-17 12:56:08   Reply   Private Reply

#9: misterwhite    To: A Pole (#6)

It could be a spontaneus combustion or meteorite.

Could be. Or that a combination of factors including physical damage, fire and the building's unusual construction set off a chain-reaction collapse.

misterwhite posted on 2018-01-17 12:58:48   Reply   Private Reply

#10: misterwhite    To: A K A Stone (#8)

Tell us how you think it collapsed.

I'm not a structural engineer. I have no idea. But the explanation given sounded plausible and I've seen no proof to the contrary.

misterwhite posted on 2018-01-17 13:02:10   Reply   Private Reply

#11: A K A Stone    To: misterwhite (#10)

You just saw the video and said it looks like controlled demolition.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-17 13:07:23   Reply   Private Reply

#12: misterwhite    To: A K A Stone (#11)

"You just saw the video and said it looks like controlled demolition."

Sure. And those lights in the sky look like flying saucers. But with no proof, speculation is pointless.

misterwhite posted on 2018-01-17 13:36:10   Reply   Private Reply

#13: A K A Stone    To: misterwhite (#12)

It's it speculation when you see controlled demolition and recognize it.

Lights in the sky could be a lot of things you're mixing apples and watermelons.

You look at something and you need the government to tell you what it was. Even though you know you saw controlled demolition.

It's ok you were never the brightest one here. Your opinion or mine will change nothing.

Remember to be a good American you must always worship the government line and dismiss your lying eyes.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-17 13:51:19   Reply   Private Reply

#14: A K A Stone    To: misterwhite (#12)

Also that orange wasn't really an orange it was a jackhammer.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-17 13:53:00   Reply   Private Reply

#15: A Pole    To: misterwhite (#9)

 building's unusual construction set off a chain-reaction collapse

I vote for meteorite.

A Pole posted on 2018-01-17 16:03:59   Reply   Private Reply

#16: misterwhite    To: A K A Stone (#13)

Even though you know you saw controlled demolition.

Could it be a controlled demolition? Is that what you're asking? Sure, it could be.

Or it could be a combination of factors including physical damage, fire and the building's unusual construction that set off a chain- reaction collapse.

I'm going with the second explanation until you or someone else presents with me with some evidence to the contrary.

misterwhite posted on 2018-01-17 17:35:51   Reply   Private Reply

#17: A K A Stone    To: misterwhite (#16)

What unusual design are you talking about?

A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-17 17:37:04   Reply   Private Reply

#18: Tooconservative    To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#17)

What unusual design are you talking about?

It had that ConEd electrical substation that took up the first 3 ground floors as I recall.

Wiki:

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967. The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2). The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built. The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation. Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.

The building collapsed after burning all afternoon. All the fire suppression systems had failed due to lack of water. WTC 7 was a 47-story building built on the 20yo foundation which was only designed to support a building of 25 stories.

Tooconservative posted on 2018-01-17 21:13:15   Reply   Private Reply