AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Quote:

---

They literally can't collapse from fire that burns significantly lower than the point where steel weakens and do so across the entire building despite fires localized at the lightest part of the building.

There would be no point in the painstaking detail and effort that goes into a controlled demolition if all it took to level a building largely symmetrically was office fires

---

Those fires were ridiculously hot. I don't know why you think otherwise. Modern office furnishings are synthetic and burn much hotter than traditional furnishings. Plus jet fuel. Plus minimal compartmentalization (which slows fire spread) due both to the design of the buildings and the damage they sustained upon impact. You are not giving those infernos the respect they deserve.

And steel fails in building fires all the time. The steel roof trusses in strip centers can collapse rather quickly if fire isn't gotten under control. You're right that it's extremely rare in high rises, but this was a pretty unique day.

---

They were not "ridiculously" hot. The fire department reached the impact zone and was confident they could contain the fires.

The temperature jet fuel burns at are nowhere close to weaken the ENTIRE core structure around or below it

---

Yes they were hot. I explained why. FDNY reached the bottom of the fire. Hot air rises. The heat above them was magnitudes higher. And of course they would say they could put it out in the moment. That's why they do. But in reality they were seeing a small portion of the problem.

And I didn't say the jet fuel weakened the steel. But it did serve as maybe the most kindling ever. It helped ignite an enormous amount of contents. Lighter fluid doesn't cook your steak. But pour enough on the coals and that fire will get going faster and hotter.

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

I have a simple question for those who know way more about this than I do, which is very little: my understanding is that building 7 is the one that is the most in question. Presumably, for a building of its size to be brought down via controlled demolition, there would have to be a large amount of wiring of explosives, laying of demolition cable etc... It has been 21 years. In all this time, do any of y'all know of any witnesses who have come forward and said they saw anything amiss in building 7 before 9/11?

Thanks and I will hang up and listen.

---

---

That was interesting. If I understand it, it's saying that the building must have been prepared in advance. My question, again, is if there are any witnesses who have come forward to say that it was prepared in advance. Does anybody know?

---

That video has witnesses that say they were told it was coming down in advance, with fire department workers saying it was going to be blown up soon and coming down.

The owner Larry Silverstein even used the demolition term "pull it" to describe the collapse

Are you going to get anyone saying "I was the one that loaded the explosives?", no, likely not.

The whole WTC7 issue seems like it was a mistake in their plan, and they didn't quite know how to control the messaging narrative, which is why it was let slip that it was going to be intentionally imploded, but in the following years they decided to stay completely silent on that topic and just let NIST fabricate a bogus justification instead in order to not implicate themselves any further than they did on 9/11

---

---

Well that's all good but it's not an answer to my question. I'm trying to be as specific/simple as possible, so I will ask it again: do you know of any witnesses that have come forward who have said that they saw anything amiss/untoward happening at this building BEFORE 9/11? If you don't know of any, that's okay. As I said, I'm just starting from square one and trying to work out from there.

Traces of Texas said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

I have a simple question for those who know way more about this than I do, which is very little: my understanding is that building 7 is the one that is the most in question. Presumably, for a building of its size to be brought down via controlled demolition, there would have to be a large amount of wiring of explosives, laying of demolition cable etc... It has been 21 years. In all this time, do any of y'all know of any witnesses who have come forward and said they saw anything amiss in building 7 before 9/11?

Thanks and I will hang up and listen.

---

---

That was interesting. If I understand it, it's saying that the building must have been prepared in advance. My question, again, is if there are any witnesses who have come forward to say that it was prepared in advance. Does anybody know?

---

That video has witnesses that say they were told it was coming down in advance, with fire department workers saying it was going to be blown up soon and coming down.

The owner Larry Silverstein even used the demolition term "pull it" to describe the collapse

Are you going to get anyone saying "I was the one that loaded the explosives?", no, likely not.

The whole WTC7 issue seems like it was a mistake in their plan, and they didn't quite know how to control the messaging narrative, which is why it was let slip that it was going to be intentionally imploded, but in the following years they decided to stay completely silent on that topic and just let NIST fabricate a bogus justification instead in order to not implicate themselves any further than they did on 9/11

---

---

Well that's all good but it's not an answer to my question. I'm trying to be as specific/simple as possible, so I will ask it again: do you know of any witnesses that have come forward who have said that they saw anything amiss/untoward happening at this building before 9/11? If you don't know of any, that's okay. As I said, I'm just starting from square one and trying to work out.

---

Other than the video I posted, not WTC7 specifically.

For the other WTC towers there was a power down the weekend before and there were numerous construction workers around the building wearing overalls, carrying tools, and spools of cable

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Quote:

---

They literally can't collapse from fire that burns significantly lower than the point where steel weakens and do so across the entire building despite fires localized at the lightest part of the building.

There would be no point in the painstaking detail and effort that goes into a controlled demolition if all it took to level a building largely symmetrically was office fires

---

Those fires were ridiculously hot. I don't know why you think otherwise. Modern office furnishings are synthetic and burn much hotter than traditional furnishings. Plus jet fuel. Plus minimal compartmentalization (which slows fire spread) due both to the design of the buildings and the damage they sustained upon impact. You are not giving those infernos the respect they deserve.

And steel fails in building fires all the time. The steel roof trusses in strip centers can collapse rather quickly if fire isn't gotten under control. You're right that it's extremely rare in high rises, but this was a pretty unique day.

---

They were not "ridiculously" hot. The fire department reached the impact zone and was confident they could contain the fires.

The temperature jet fuel burns at are nowhere close to weaken the ENTIRE core structure around or below it

---

Yes they were hot. I explained why. FDNY reached the bottom of the fire. Hot air rises. The heat above them was magnitudes higher. And of course they would say they could put it out in the moment. That's why they do. But i reality they were seeing a small portion of the problem.

And I didn't say the jet fuel weakened the steel. But it did serve as maybe the most kindling ever. It helped ignite an enormous amount of contents. Lighter fluid doesn't cook your steak. But pour enough on the coals and that fire will get going faster and hotter.

---

"Hot" fires aren't going to bring down a modern steel building and leave traces of molten steel and thermate residue in the dust cloud

The temps in the WTC buildings were no greater than many other numerous building fires throughout history that did not collapse

I just downloaded the entire NIST report on WTC-7.


https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611


800 pages. I've got some surgery coming up this week and I'll be down for about 10 days afterward. I'm going to read it and try to understand as much as I can. Wish me luck.

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Quote:

---

They literally can't collapse from fire that burns significantly lower than the point where steel weakens and do so across the entire building despite fires localized at the lightest part of the building.

There would be no point in the painstaking detail and effort that goes into a controlled demolition if all it took to level a building largely symmetrically was office fires

---

Those fires were ridiculously hot. I don't know why you think otherwise. Modern office furnishings are synthetic and burn much hotter than traditional furnishings. Plus jet fuel. Plus minimal compartmentalization (which slows fire spread) due both to the design of the buildings and the damage they sustained upon impact. You are not giving those infernos the respect they deserve.

And steel fails in building fires all the time. The steel roof trusses in strip centers can collapse rather quickly if fire isn't gotten under control. You're right that it's extremely rare in high rises, but this was a pretty unique day.

---

They were not "ridiculously" hot. The fire department reached the impact zone and was confident they could contain the fires.

The temperature jet fuel burns at are nowhere close to weaken the ENTIRE core structure around or below it

---

Yes they were hot. I explained why. FDNY reached the bottom of the fire. Hot air rises. The heat above them was magnitudes higher. And of course they would say they could put it out in the moment. That's why they do. But i reality they were seeing a small portion of the problem.

And I didn't say the jet fuel weakened the steel. But it did serve as maybe the most kindling ever. It helped ignite an enormous amount of contents. Lighter fluid doesn't cook your steak. But pour enough on the coals and that fire will get going faster and hotter.

---

"Hot" fires aren't going to bring down a modern steel building and leave traces of molten steel and thermate residue in the dust cloud

The temps in the WTC buildings were no greater than many other numerous building fires throughout history that did not collapse

---

I don't know what fires you are referring to. You can tell me if you want, but it doesn't really matter. Because to any of those fires I would say:

How many started as huge fires instantly?
How many of those buildings sustained massive structural damage at the instant the fire started?
How many had spray on fire proofing (the least effective kind)?
Out of those, how many had the fire proofing blasted off at the instant the fire started?
How many had open floor plans to encourage fire spread?
How many of those fires had the weight of 17 or 33 floors above them?
How many of those fires were 77 or 93 floors high, making firefighting a massive challenge?
How many had sprinklers that didn't work?

I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain to you that these fires were unlike any seen before.

Traces of Texas said:

---

I just downloaded the entire NIST report on WTC-7.


https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611


800 pages. I've got some surgery coming up this week and I'll be down for about 10 days afterward. I'm going to read it and try to understand as much as I can. Wish me luck.

---

You will want to read the latest academic report as well

https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Quote:

---

They literally can't collapse from fire that burns significantly lower than the point where steel weakens and do so across the entire building despite fires localized at the lightest part of the building.

There would be no point in the painstaking detail and effort that goes into a controlled demolition if all it took to level a building largely symmetrically was office fires

---

Those fires were ridiculously hot. I don't know why you think otherwise. Modern office furnishings are synthetic and burn much hotter than traditional furnishings. Plus jet fuel. Plus minimal compartmentalization (which slows fire spread) due both to the design of the buildings and the damage they sustained upon impact. You are not giving those infernos the respect they deserve.

And steel fails in building fires all the time. The steel roof trusses in strip centers can collapse rather quickly if fire isn't gotten under control. You're right that it's extremely rare in high rises, but this was a pretty unique day.

---

They were not "ridiculously" hot. The fire department reached the impact zone and was confident they could contain the fires.

The temperature jet fuel burns at are nowhere close to weaken the ENTIRE core structure around or below it

---

Yes they were hot. I explained why. FDNY reached the bottom of the fire. Hot air rises. The heat above them was magnitudes higher. And of course they would say they could put it out in the moment. That's why they do. But i reality they were seeing a small portion of the problem.

And I didn't say the jet fuel weakened the steel. But it did serve as maybe the most kindling ever. It helped ignite an enormous amount of contents. Lighter fluid doesn't cook your steak. But pour enough on the coals and that fire will get going faster and hotter.

---

"Hot" fires aren't going to bring down a modern steel building and leave traces of molten steel and thermate residue in the dust cloud

The temps in the WTC buildings were no greater than many other numerous building fires throughout history that did not collapse

---

I don't know what fires you are referring to. You can tell me if you want, but it doesn't really matter. Because to any of those fires I would say:

How many started as huge fires instantly?
How many of those buildings sustained massive structural damage at the instant the fire started?
How many had spray on fire proofing (the least effective kind)?
Out of those, how many had the fire proofing blasted off at the instant the fire started?
How many had open floor plans to encourage fire spread?
How many of those fires had the weight of 17 or 33 floors above them?
How many of those fires were 77 or 93 floors high, making firefighting a massive challenge?
How many had sprinklers that didn't work?

I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain to you that these fires were unlike any seen before.

---

Countless buildings that had it much worse in terms of percentage of the building affected and duration of the fires. Fires being located at the top of the building means that most of building's strongest core columns are unaffected

These fires were not "unlike anything we've seen before" other than, according to the official story, somehow managed to cause molten steel despite not burning anywhere near hot enough. That's certainly unheard of.

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

I have a simple question for those who know way more about this than I do, which is very little: my understanding is that building 7 is the one that is the most in question. Presumably, for a building of its size to be brought down via controlled demolition, there would have to be a large amount of wiring of explosives, laying of demolition cable etc... It has been 21 years. In all this time, do any of y'all know of any witnesses who have come forward and said they saw anything amiss in building 7 before 9/11?

Thanks and I will hang up and listen.

---

---

That was interesting. If I understand it, it's saying that the building must have been prepared in advance. My question, again, is if there are any witnesses who have come forward to say that it was prepared in advance. Does anybody know?

---

That video has witnesses that say they were told it was coming down in advance, with fire department workers saying it was going to be blown up soon and coming down.

The owner Larry Silverstein even used the demolition term "pull it" to describe the collapse

Are you going to get anyone saying "I was the one that loaded the explosives?", no, likely not.

The whole WTC7 issue seems like it was a mistake in their plan, and they didn't quite know how to control the messaging narrative, which is why it was let slip that it was going to be intentionally imploded, but in the following years they decided to stay completely silent on that topic and just let NIST fabricate a bogus justification instead in order to not implicate themselves any further than they did on 9/11

---

---

Well that's all good but it's not an answer to my question. I'm trying to be as specific/simple as possible, so I will ask it again: do you know of any witnesses that have come forward who have said that they saw anything amiss/untoward happening at this building before 9/11? If you don't know of any, that's okay. As I said, I'm just starting from square one and trying to work out.

---

Other than the video I posted, not WTC7 specifically.

For the other WTC towers there was a power down the weekend before and there were numerous construction workers around the building wearing overalls, carrying tools, and spools of cable

---

My father drilled this into my head when I was growing up: "Son, you can't trust a man walking around wearing overalls and carrying tools. They're just looking to blow something up."

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

I have a simple question for those who know way more about this than I do, which is very little: my understanding is that building 7 is the one that is the most in question. Presumably, for a building of its size to be brought down via controlled demolition, there would have to be a large amount of wiring of explosives, laying of demolition cable etc... It has been 21 years. In all this time, do any of y'all know of any witnesses who have come forward and said they saw anything amiss in building 7 before 9/11?

Thanks and I will hang up and listen.

---

---

That was interesting. If I understand it, it's saying that the building must have been prepared in advance. My question, again, is if there are any witnesses who have come forward to say that it was prepared in advance. Does anybody know?

---

That video has witnesses that say they were told it was coming down in advance, with fire department workers saying it was going to be blown up soon and coming down.

The owner Larry Silverstein even used the demolition term "pull it" to describe the collapse

Are you going to get anyone saying "I was the one that loaded the explosives?", no, likely not.

The whole WTC7 issue seems like it was a mistake in their plan, and they didn't quite know how to control the messaging narrative, which is why it was let slip that it was going to be intentionally imploded, but in the following years they decided to stay completely silent on that topic and just let NIST fabricate a bogus justification instead in order to not implicate themselves any further than they did on 9/11

---

---

Well that's all good but it's not an answer to my question. I'm trying to be as specific/simple as possible, so I will ask it again: do you know of any witnesses that have come forward who have said that they saw anything amiss/untoward happening at this building before 9/11? If you don't know of any, that's okay. As I said, I'm just starting from square one and trying to work out.

---

Other than the video I posted, not WTC7 specifically.

For the other WTC towers there was a power down the weekend before and there were numerous construction workers around the building wearing overalls, carrying tools, and spools of cable

---

My father drilled this into my head when I was growing up: "Son, you can't trust a man walking around wearing overalls and carrying tools. They're just looking to blow something up."

---

And you precisely answer the legion of posters that respond with "bububu of course someone must have seen something suspicious", precisely because explosives being placed is easily hidden under the guise of normal office maintenance and nobody would bat and eye

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

I have a simple question for those who know way more about this than I do, which is very little: my understanding is that building 7 is the one that is the most in question. Presumably, for a building of its size to be brought down via controlled demolition, there would have to be a large amount of wiring of explosives, laying of demolition cable etc... It has been 21 years. In all this time, do any of y'all know of any witnesses who have come forward and said they saw anything amiss in building 7 before 9/11?

Thanks and I will hang up and listen.

---

---

That was interesting. If I understand it, it's saying that the building must have been prepared in advance. My question, again, is if there are any witnesses who have come forward to say that it was prepared in advance. Does anybody know?

---

That video has witnesses that say they were told it was coming down in advance, with fire department workers saying it was going to be blown up soon and coming down.

The owner Larry Silverstein even used the demolition term "pull it" to describe the collapse

Are you going to get anyone saying "I was the one that loaded the explosives?", no, likely not.

The whole WTC7 issue seems like it was a mistake in their plan, and they didn't quite know how to control the messaging narrative, which is why it was let slip that it was going to be intentionally imploded, but in the following years they decided to stay completely silent on that topic and just let NIST fabricate a bogus justification instead in order to not implicate themselves any further than they did on 9/11

---

---

Well that's all good but it's not an answer to my question. I'm trying to be as specific/simple as possible, so I will ask it again: do you know of any witnesses that have come forward who have said that they saw anything amiss/untoward happening at this building before 9/11? If you don't know of any, that's okay. As I said, I'm just starting from square one and trying to work out.

---

Other than the video I posted, not WTC7 specifically.

For the other WTC towers there was a power down the weekend before and there were numerous construction workers around the building wearing overalls, carrying tools, and spools of cable

---

My father drilled this into my head when I was growing up: "Son, you can't trust a man walking around wearing overalls and carrying tools. They're just looking to blow something up."

---

And you precisely answer the legion of posters that respond with "bububu of course someone must have seen something suspicious", precisely because explosives being placed is easily hidden under the guise of normal office maintenance and nobody would bat and eye

---

I thought the nano-thermite didn't require cabling.

Some dudes wandering around one weekend with tools and spools of cable is not how buildings are demolished. But you know that.

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

agracer said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

I don't know what they did exactly. The point I'm making is that your use of the "wouldn't kill their own people" and "somehow nobody revealed the conspiracy" arguments are proven wrong unless you believe all the covid stuff just "happened" and our government and the media have been honest and correct in everything they've done.

---

Except that plenty of people are speaking out about the covid stuff calling out the media, the government and the medical community.

Nobody is speaking out about planting charges in buildings, landing AIRLINERS at secret airports and killing the occupants.

The two are not even remotely close to the same thing.

---

Tons of people have spoken out about hearing explosions. You dismiss them immediately. The media announced tower 7 falling 20 minutes before it fell. You dismiss that as just a screwup. If there were actual whistle-blowers saying they planted explosives, you would dismiss them as liars.

But your analagy is flawed anyway. You want whistle-blowers saying they planted explosives or killed plane occupants. This would be akin to covid whistle-blowers coming forward to say they planted the virus on someone on purpose. The covid whistle-blowers have been underlings at Pfizer and doctors and nurses, not anyone that had direct knowledge of a planned attack. Basically the same people that heard or witnessed explosions on 911, or Willie Rodriguez or Barry Jennings.

The people who would have killed passengers or planted explosives are obviously not the kind of people who would confess. You don't believe those people exist, that's fine, but the lack of directly-involved whistle-blowers to 911 does not prove it didn't happen, and does not dismantle the possible correlation that the same people were responsible for covid.

---

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

---

Exactly. The fantasy that you and other truthers choose to believe is impossible. Therefore the improbable, as truthers can't acknowledge, must be the truth.

Finally something we agree on.

---

There's nothing impossible about conspiring false flag attacks. There are countless examples throughout history

It is impossible for three WTC buildings to completely collapse with fires from airplanes resulting in molten steel, thermate residue, and direct explosive evidence.

---

See, I told you going 4 for 4 on hijacked plane direct hits was just too over the top.

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

I have a simple question for those who know way more about this than I do, which is very little: my understanding is that building 7 is the one that is the most in question. Presumably, for a building of its size to be brought down via controlled demolition, there would have to be a large amount of wiring of explosives, laying of demolition cable etc... It has been 21 years. In all this time, do any of y'all know of any witnesses who have come forward and said they saw anything amiss in building 7 before 9/11?

Thanks and I will hang up and listen.

---

---

That was interesting. If I understand it, it's saying that the building must have been prepared in advance. My question, again, is if there are any witnesses who have come forward to say that it was prepared in advance. Does anybody know?

---

That video has witnesses that say they were told it was coming down in advance, with fire department workers saying it was going to be blown up soon and coming down.

---

So these fire department workers were part and parcel of the conspirators?

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

I have a simple question for those who know way more about this than I do, which is very little: my understanding is that building 7 is the one that is the most in question. Presumably, for a building of its size to be brought down via controlled demolition, there would have to be a large amount of wiring of explosives, laying of demolition cable etc... It has been 21 years. In all this time, do any of y'all know of any witnesses who have come forward and said they saw anything amiss in building 7 before 9/11?

Thanks and I will hang up and listen.

---

---

That was interesting. If I understand it, it's saying that the building must have been prepared in advance. My question, again, is if there are any witnesses who have come forward to say that it was prepared in advance. Does anybody know?

---

That video has witnesses that say they were told it was coming down in advance, with fire department workers saying it was going to be blown up soon and coming down.

---

So these fire department workers were part and parcel of the conspirators?

---

That's not what I said. But whoever was zoning off that building and calling the shots was feeding everyone that information.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

I have a simple question for those who know way more about this than I do, which is very little: my understanding is that building 7 is the one that is the most in question. Presumably, for a building of its size to be brought down via controlled demolition, there would have to be a large amount of wiring of explosives, laying of demolition cable etc... It has been 21 years. In all this time, do any of y'all know of any witnesses who have come forward and said they saw anything amiss in building 7 before 9/11?

Thanks and I will hang up and listen.

---

---

That was interesting. If I understand it, it's saying that the building must have been prepared in advance. My question, again, is if there are any witnesses who have come forward to say that it was prepared in advance. Does anybody know?

---

That video has witnesses that say they were told it was coming down in advance, with fire department workers saying it was going to be blown up soon and coming down.

---

So these fire department workers were part and parcel of the conspirators?

---

they were part of the conspiracy

AggiEE said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

I have a simple question for those who know way more about this than I do, which is very little: my understanding is that building 7 is the one that is the most in question. Presumably, for a building of its size to be brought down via controlled demolition, there would have to be a large amount of wiring of explosives, laying of demolition cable etc... It has been 21 years. In all this time, do any of y'all know of any witnesses who have come forward and said they saw anything amiss in building 7 before 9/11?

Thanks and I will hang up and listen.

---

---

That was interesting. If I understand it, it's saying that the building must have been prepared in advance. My question, again, is if there are any witnesses who have come forward to say that it was prepared in advance. Does anybody know?

---

That video has witnesses that say they were told it was coming down in advance, with fire department workers saying it was going to be blown up soon and coming down.

---

So these fire department workers were part and parcel of the conspirators?

---

That's not what I said. But whoever was zoning off that building and calling the shots was feeding everyone that information.

---

I think it would help you if you took a break from thinking about this stuff. I'm being serious. You're not making a lot of sense. I feel like you're that dude from 'A Beautiful Mind' right now.

AggiEE said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

I have a simple question for those who know way more about this than I do, which is very little: my understanding is that building 7 is the one that is the most in question. Presumably, for a building of its size to be brought down via controlled demolition, there would have to be a large amount of wiring of explosives, laying of demolition cable etc... It has been 21 years. In all this time, do any of y'all know of any witnesses who have come forward and said they saw anything amiss in building 7 before 9/11?

Thanks and I will hang up and listen.

---

---

That was interesting. If I understand it, it's saying that the building must have been prepared in advance. My question, again, is if there are any witnesses who have come forward to say that it was prepared in advance. Does anybody know?

---

That video has witnesses that say they were told it was coming down in advance, with fire department workers saying it was going to be blown up soon and coming down.

---

So these fire department workers were part and parcel of the conspirators?

---

That's not what I said. But whoever was zoning off that building and calling the shots was feeding everyone that information.

---

What part of "fire department workers saying it was going to be blown up soon" make any sense, in any normal description of a building fire or catastrophic event? I'm only using your direct quote and in no way trying to obfuscate wording. It implies they were involved in some form or fashion. When would ANY firefighter say something like that without some sort of knowledge? You have consistently pointed out extremely minor inconsistencies to support your theory, but in a cavalier way, dismiss some aspects which contradict the end result.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Traces of Texas said:

---

I have a simple question for those who know way more about this than I do, which is very little: my understanding is that building 7 is the one that is the most in question. Presumably, for a building of its size to be brought down via controlled demolition, there would have to be a large amount of wiring of explosives, laying of demolition cable etc... It has been 21 years. In all this time, do any of y'all know of any witnesses who have come forward and said they saw anything amiss in building 7 before 9/11?

Thanks and I will hang up and listen.

---

---

That was interesting. If I understand it, it's saying that the building must have been prepared in advance. My question, again, is if there are any witnesses who have come forward to say that it was prepared in advance. Does anybody know?

---

That video has witnesses that say they were told it was coming down in advance, with fire department workers saying it was going to be blown up soon and coming down.

---

So these fire department workers were part and parcel of the conspirators?

---

That's not what I said. But whoever was zoning off that building and calling the shots was feeding everyone that information.

---

What part of "fire department workers saying it was going to be blown up soon" make any sense, in any normal description of a building fire or catastrophic event? I'm only using your direct quote and in no way trying to obfuscate wording. It implies they were involved in some form or fashion. When would ANY firefighter say something like that without some sort of knowledge? You have consistently pointed out extremely minor inconsistencies to support your theory, but in a cavalier way, dismiss some aspects which contradict the end result.

---

Why am I supposed to make sense of what the Fire Department is recorded as to saying? I am just reporting the situation surrounding WTC7 that day. Whether they were directly involved or not, at the very least someone was telling the Fire Department that the building was going to come down or be demolished intentionally, which is absolutely ridiculous to know in advance since no modern steel building had ever come down by itself due to fire before. How could anyone predict that? It points to demolition. The fire department is on record saying "move it back, the building is about to blow up".

WATCH THE VIDEO I posted, I am not making this stuff up. 1:30 into the vid.



And of course, more explosions around WTC7

It happened a few hours earlier. Twice.

Don't you think after that they would be concerned about it happening again?

Stop hanging your hat on the impossibility of a high rise building collapsing from fire. Is it unlikely? Yes. But it can happen. And I've explained how multiple times in this thread.