311
Comments (70)
sorted by:
13
HocusLocus 13 points ago +21 / -8

She was relating a misquoted story, the real source was that that Chief Hayden had sighted the corner of WTC7 vertically with a transit and a bulge was sighted on the corner, so he claimed it was in danger of imminent collapse and ordered a temporary evacuation of responders from Ground Zero (they were pissed, many didn't comply) to avoid further loss of life.

WTC7 was built out over an existing Con Edison transformer farm with cantilevered trusses, the South edge of the building was unsupported from the ground. .When the buildings collapsed into their subbasements the wall of the 'bathtub' they had been built in, that Seven was perched on, was dislocated and damaged. So after the collapses WTC7 was the only building you would have expected to collapse on that day.

I was deeply suspicious of the people feeding Alex Jones and the Internet with this childish "WTC7 changes everything! Focus on Seven!" meme. No deaths were officially ascribed to the collapse of Seven, so no murder is involved. It would make a fine limited hang out to divert attention away from the circumstances surrounding the collapse initiation of the Towers. It also put amateur investigators at odds with firefighter testimony of fires on the South face of Seven, so it would also be an excellent PSYOP to discredit that testimony. But Seven did not fall from fires or explosions, it was instability and loss of vertical.

And alas, it worked. I was one of only a few people studying the Towers' blueprints while people were prattling on about WTC7. One of them will probably come along and downvote me for it.

7
TrueTemper2 7 points ago +8 / -1

Nothing of what you suggested is remotely correct. Even the “official” story is that a critical failure of column 79 on floor 12 triggered another series of simultaneous, impossible failures. If the building fell into a subterranean void on a corner of the building, it would have toppled over, not decelerated from th top floor down in perfect free fall.

Many groups of engineers have now looked at this and reached the same conclusions.

https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/world-trade-center-7-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report

It would be so much easier if the official story, or anything close to it, were true. Alas… it is most certainly not.

2
nonredneck 2 points ago +2 / -0

That Canada report is clearly false. It claims “we don’t know if the beams were insulated” and “there was no source of fuel to burn above the 30th floor”. I know from personal observations the beams were very poorly insulated and there was tons of diesel in tanks for the generators. Once again no truthers are real New Yorkers

1
TrueTemper2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Neither point would have remotely changed the conclusion of the report. You cherry pick two random, unknown data points and claim personal knowledge of them? Ok.

The buckling of the ceiling of building 7 happens when the charges blow the main columns of the building, and the room on the roof buckles followed by the center of the roof. No fires burning anywhere close to the high floors (this is well documented). All of the fires were much lower. Not that it matters, the whole building could have been engulfed in flames and it would not have collapsed, because that’s not what a steel structure does when set on fire.

Plenty of New Yorkers ware on tape saying they heard the explosions… “boom, boom, boom” but they don’t count I suppose.

0
HocusLocus 0 points ago +1 / -1

I've seen it countless times.

  1. Open by declaring nothing true when replying. How deranged I must be to bring up essential facts of 7's construction!
  2. The laughingly late OCT of 7's fall does not interest me except to note the position of the first failure low in the building which makes perfect sense.
  3. After 9/11, a lot of amateur investigators started learning about government agencies of engineers, what many are learning today about government agencies of doctors. Painful lessons.
  4. Seven fell quickly and appeared to be a straight down fall because every single vantage point only showed the top of the building.
  5. Cantilevered trusses along an entire axis are garbage for a high rise building. That shit should never have been signed off on. Add to your dangers all the failure modes of bridges.
  6. When a steel supported building loses its vertical and fails down below, the internal loads transferred around are brutal and quick. If all you can see is the upper two thirds of course it will appear vertical. You've seen too many photos of Chinese concrete department stores and apartment buildings leaning over.

The distraction (from circumstances surrounding the initiation of the Towers' collapse) continues.

6
BemorePcCuntyFagFace 6 points ago +6 / -0

Has the disappearance of boxes of files and proof about the trillions stolen from the pentagons budget been addressed? I keep hearing they were destroyed in the collapse. Right before they were needed.....

1
HocusLocus 1 point ago +1 / -0

In Rumsfeld's speech the 2.3 trillion was not strictly missing, He said it in a roundabout way and the context was not that it was suddenly missing, only that amount couldn't be tracked back in time due to archaic systems and procedures. He said, "The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it’s stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."

Pretty droll really. Spicier yet for the day before 9/11 was another comment, "Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretary of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them I reply, I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself."

Rumsfeld's whole speech is linked from my recent post which outlines what my personal 9/11 working theory is right now. It may not sit with some people but I believe that the neocons were 'in' on a specific and limited 9/11 plot to put a plane into the Pentagon to jumpstart their 'New Pearl Harbor' war, but they were betrayed by the Planners.

2
nonredneck 2 points ago +2 / -0

Have my updoot brother. 7wtc was stunningly weaker under burning avgas than the deutsche bank building.

6
RudyPillowPowell 6 points ago +8 / -2

God love the younger pedes.

6
Steveo19 6 points ago +6 / -0

How long till it collapsed. I'm not being dismissive. Live feed are often on a delay.

15
TrueTemper2 15 points ago +16 / -1

20+ minutes. This isn't easy. After so many just watched a presidential election stolen, I hope they are more receptive to considering that everything they believe about their country and government is wrong.

BBC reporter most likely given the information. Didn't know about the specific building. Who provided the information? That's a key question.

start here with a 5 min video - Building 7 demolition wasn't well orchestrated. The most obvious lie that unlocks the whole thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNR6Kbg5jJ8&app=desktop&has_verified=1

progress more in detail on everything that happened that day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Q5eZhCPuc

understand the deceptions used and images/TV role in your perception of events that day: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vle9KDFKfWYN/

explore the analysis and findings of actual engineers and architects, which are basically irrefutable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

Still leaves a ton we don't know, but demonstrates for sure what we think we know/knew is 100% bullshit.

7
V2021 [S] 7 points ago +8 / -1

There’s a ton we’ll never know because all the videos were deleted from YouTube.

Remember when we had to type [email protected]@te to keep posts from being deleted on Reddit?

They don’t censor things unless they’re true.

4
TrueTemper2 4 points ago +4 / -0

So true. Which is why I hope some of the former videos that are helpful for reviewing the many aspects of this event get moved to Rumble or other non-state run media platform.

1
Anon89 1 point ago +1 / -0

That’s how censoring works.

7
V2021 [S] 7 points ago +8 / -1

She was reporting live that it had already collapsed standing in front of the building in her live shot.

Both her and the building were in the same shot live. She was in NYC.

3
nonredneck 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sorry it was a live shot but the building in pic was not 7wtc

1
lixa 1 point ago +2 / -1

Legit question, is it possible her background video was recorded and not live?

1
War_Hamster 1 point ago +3 / -2

She said the building had fallen. Not much later the building fell.

Doesn't matter what video she had because she somehow had advance notice.

We were yelling about this in real time. "How the F did she know that?"

1
lixa 1 point ago +2 / -1

You misunderstand me, I’m saying it’s possible that they’re showing previous video behind her while she’s being told that 7 fell over her headset. Doesn’t in any way imply advance notice.

3
War_Hamster 3 points ago +3 / -0

No, I understand what you're saying.

What I'm saying is that the video behind her is immaterial. She did announce that the building had fallen before the building actually fell. We saw it go down 20 minutes later on other networks and that was live.

2
lixa 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ah I see what you’re saying. Makes sense now!

2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

Cheers.

1
qutekouple_4_unicorn 1 point ago +1 / -0

She was in front of a window wasn't she, sorry I can't watch the video without logging into Google to check myself, I'm going off memory

1
lixa 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don’t know. I’d like to see the actual video.

-1
Steveo19 -1 points ago +1 / -2

I know I remember. I absolutely belive it was taken down. I just don't think a BBC reporter was in on it. I watch the baseball game in different room. I can hear my dad and bro cheer. I don't see what happens for another minute. Live doesn't necessarily mean Live. It could have a bit of delay.

14
V2021 [S] 14 points ago +15 / -1

You clearly don’t understand. The building was in the reporter’s live shot as she was reporting it had collapsed.

It’s like reporting from the stadium that some guy hit a home run while he’s in the batters box behind you in the shot.

It wasn’t a green screen.

5
War_Hamster 5 points ago +5 / -0

Even without the video of the building in the background of her shot, the fact that she announced it had fallen when it was still standing happened. This can't be disputed. It happened.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-3
nonredneck -3 points ago +1 / -4

You clearly are an idiot. The wtc atrocity was the most documented event in history. Stfu.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

Did you reply to the wrong person? A minute earlier you replied to the same person with "Truth".

1
nonredneck 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thank you. Corrected earlier comment. You guys really believe 7wtc was wired for demolition? Then you are not from New York.

2
Benwa1985 2 points ago +2 / -0

She is reporting the building behind her being collapsed. No explanation of delay from live feed could explain that.

2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

We had multiple channels going at the bar. About 20 minutes after she said it had already fallen, multiple channels showed it falling in real time.

1
stonepony 1 point ago +2 / -1

It's because the FDNY had announced that the building was a lost cause and they were pulling everybody out to focus their efforts elsewhere.

Anyone who thinks the Firefighters teamed up with the BBC to murder people to frame muslims on 9/11, is a retard.

IMHO.

6
BunnyPicnic 6 points ago +6 / -0

I was 11. Didn't really know what what happening. But that's the day the deep state (commies) fully took over. It's not that I don't believe terrorists flew planes into the buildings, it's that I believe we created them, trained them, and funded them. And allowed them to do this because never waste a crisis. Since that day, the nsa, tsa, patriot act, multiple wars, etc all happened. And we all allowed it because we were afraid. Same fucking shit is happening with COVID-19.

I'm only 31. Did the middle eastern countries hate us before we went over there? Sure, there may have been a few years in the 90s, but that's all the more reason to allow 9/11.

3
Assassin47 3 points ago +3 / -0

NSA had been listening to phone calls for at least two decades before that. The patriot act just legitimized what they were doing already.

2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, they hated us for quite some time. American foreign policy has been messing with the politics of resource rich nations for more than a century for the benefit of our commercial interests. We basically took over England's foreign interventionist policy when they went broke and had to back off from empire building. The Ugly American is a very real thing.

Also, the DS took total control in 1913. We've been at war ever since.

5
bananafone 5 points ago +5 / -0

Has anyone ever found her and asked her for her side of the story?

1
masculinist 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nothing can stop the US Air Force, um, except for some goat fucking ragheads who briefly studied at an American flight school then crashed hijacked commercial airliners into the Twin Towers each an hour apart, and then into the one wing of the Pentagon that was being renovated at the time and was marked with a big lawn symbol prior to being struck, of which nearby gas station video footage was publicly released which showed a cruise missile type of device heading toward the Pentagon building where no actual airplane wreckage was ever recovered. Yup. We were duped. And that was the most infamous false flag event since Pearl Harbor.

1
EddieBooth 1 point ago +2 / -1

BBC employ woke, manage to fuck everything up, retards and have done so for decades. And why would anyone include them in a false flag loop?

0
V2021 [S] 0 points ago +2 / -2

Because she was given a script that WTC7 had collapsed when it hadn’t collapsed, and when there was no reason to believe it would collapse. It wasn’t hit by a plane and was one of dozens of building on fire and hit by debris from WTC1 and WTC2.

0
nonredneck 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yes the old Deutsche bank building took more burning avgas and survived better. Better older build with fireproof tiles and no interior tanks of diesel. If you are not just (also) a lying shill I feel bad for you man

-5
EddieBooth -5 points ago +2 / -7

It shared the foundations, it was the same, fragile construction technique, never copied since. The shock of the trade towers falling would be enough to crack all the nuts and bolts holding it up. There wasn't dozens of buildings on fire.

5
V2021 [S] 5 points ago +7 / -2

You just made all of that up.

We’re you there?

There were dozens of buildings on fire. The construction wasn’t fragile.

Even if your theory was true, how did it last until 5 pm then every vertical support collapse simultaneously in both the x and y axes across the first floors of the building?

That’s the only way the roof can come down perfectly horizontal with no tilt in any direction. All vertical supports including the corners had to fail at the exact same time.

0
EddieBooth 0 points ago +3 / -3

Same way it took joe Biden 25 steps before he fell on the airplane stairs, his poor construction just couldn't take it anymore. The construction was fragile, due to the idea of having a huge open space inside. Not columns every few yards. The only supports were the central lift/ stairs core ( but that wasn't even fire proofed) and the vertical steel columns you can see on the outside. Those columns were simply bolted together, the shock of the crash, cracked many bolts. Many finally failed , causing the nearby ones to crack too and the thing pancaked downwards. When they build skyscrapers, they design them to fall straight downwards not sideways.

0
nonredneck 0 points ago +1 / -1

In addition a couple of floors had been removed to create double height trading floors

1
nonredneck 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wow for that I get a downvote? Consider your life you poor thing

0
nonredneck 0 points ago +1 / -1

I was all over that building you twit. Were you ever there? I know yer not a New Yorker now don’t lie

1
DemsHaveNoHomeHere 1 point ago +1 / -0

K GUISE JUST FINISHED MY CELL CALL WITH MY '01 2G FLIP PHONE........LETS ROLL!

1
stonepony 1 point ago +2 / -1

Yep, the BBC and the firefighters did it to frame innocent muslims.

Derp.

1
nonredneck 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lol

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

Here is the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GcjP9KVR7E

But I think HocusLocus's explanation makes the most sense.

1
scerden 1 point ago +1 / -0

I remember this video a bit differently. I saw this reporter back in 2006. this seems like the same video I saw then but it's not the same. I don't remember it cutting her off at the end and I do remember the building collapsing behind her as she was speaking. this video doesn't show that! I looked around on youtube not really expecting to find it and I didn't. does anybody have the one where it actually show it collapsing behind her? I've lost the file years ago.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
Briben 0 points ago +6 / -6

The view in this picture is from uptown looking downtown. The tall building to her left is the Chrysler building which is on the east side of manhattan. The Chrysler building is on 42nd street about five miles north of the WTC and from her vantage she is probably near Central Park, another mile or so north of that. The Salomon building (building 7) was located between the two towers. This building outline may look similar but half the buildings in manhattan look like this. To look at its widest side, as suggested here, would mean that you would see plumes of smoke both to its right and left of the building and as it was no taller than any other skyscraper in manhattan you would not have been able to see building 7 at all if it were standing from her vantage point. This is a misattribution of a different building and calling it building 7.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

7
V2021 [S] 7 points ago +10 / -3

It isn’t debated that this is WTC7 in the shot.

How old were you?

Millions of pedes spent years researching every detail about 9/11 in forums. Coming in with a flippant hot take without doing any research on your own might not be the best approach.

1
Briben 1 point ago +2 / -1

I’m debating it right now. The tall narrow building in the left of the frame is clearly the Chrysler building which is on the east side of midtown Manhattan. As the smoke is more to the right that is from the towers which were south five miles and to the west. That means the picture was taken due north of both and given the small size of the Chrysler building in the frame is at least 1 or two miles due north. You would not see building 7 at all and certainly not at the size in the photo from six miles north of it. This is a clear mis-attribution.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

What building is it?

1
nonredneck 1 point ago +1 / -0

Truth. Actually a malicious lie.

1
nonredneck 1 point ago +1 / -0

Millions of pedes lol ! Isn’t debated! Hah How old ARE you? I had an office in that building AMA!

-1
nonredneck -1 points ago +1 / -2

Oh it is debated you retard shill. Take your pennies and go

3
Proud_American 3 points ago +6 / -3

This. It’s not building 7 and was shown not to be almost immediately, but people want to run with this narrative anyway.

The building should not have come down, however. That will never be debatable.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

was shown not to be almost immediately

What do you mean?

2
Proud_American 2 points ago +2 / -0

The skyline is such that you can’t see building 7 from that angle. The building under the arrow is not building 7

1
nonredneck 1 point ago +1 / -0

True

1
nonredneck 1 point ago +1 / -0

True, 7wtc was grossly under built, but pouring burning avgas on a shock damaged cantilevered building filled with diesel tanks rarely ends well.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

That long DailyMail article full of ads doesn't disprove anything. I'm not even sure how it's related to this discussion except that it mentions building 7 being on fire.

The camera is looking at it from an angle, not "at it's widest side". You can't really tell where the smoke is coming from exactly, because the area is surrounded by buildings and the wind is carrying it sideways. It looks exactly like building 7. So the question is simple: if that's not building 7, what building is it? We can easily look up pictures of whatever you claim it is to verify.

1
Usernames1 1 point ago +1 / -0

I've just inserted my monopoly monocle 🧐 and tophat. After 20 years, I've done about 5 seconds of sermisising and have come to understand that this is indeed not, or it is, building 7. I will need to pass Go first to have my answer. Please standby.

0
nonredneck 0 points ago +1 / -1

True