Investigate Building 7 : March 26 2011, West Hartford CT The Case for a New Building 7 Investigation First of a a Three-part Presentation Introduced by Dr. W…
(Visited 39 times, 1 visits today)
Foreknowledge of Building 7’s Collapse : Dr. Graeme MacQueen
Logging you in...
Loading IntenseDebate Comments...
TOP FIVE 911 TWOOFER LIES
1) Nanothermite (aka paint chips from PPG)
2) No flight 93 (despite 95% of plane debris recovered)
3) No flight 77 (even though over 130 witnesses saw a plane)
4) Marvin Bush WTC security (never happened)
5) Free fall speed (absolutely no building collapsed at freefall speed)
Foreknowledge to building 7 is the key to everything…EVERYTHING ! If 7 was bought down by explosives, then the WHOLE thing, the twins, the Pentagon, flight 93 the whole thing was an inside job because it would have all had to have been planned months if not years before and it is totally inconceivable that terrorists could have pulled any part yet alone the whole, off.
13falls123 is either a denialist fool or a psyops disinformation operator. Discount him/her.
Since you are so knowlegable of the collapse…..do you know who the anonymous engineer is that advised these firefighters??
According to the NIST final report, and Shyam Sunder….an anonymous source advised the firefighters building 7 would collapse around 10:30 am
Who is this anonymous source?? Shyam wont say…..but im sure you know
"'We made the decision to pull the building""
Wrong. You've misquoted Silverstein. He said they made that decision to pull. Who is "they?"
They noted the building was unstable and likely to collapse. They didn't predict HOW it would collapse. BTW, it didn't collapse symmetrically. The videos only show a portion of the North and West facades. They don't show the collapse of the South side or West side which collapsed first, and they obviously don't show the collapse of the interior areas.
Did anyone, firefighters and media included, think that building 7 was going to collapse symmetrically the way it did?
Any reasonable person who looks at the facts can see the truth isn't in the official report. Yet, they ramble on, spouting disagreements with facts, as a lunatic might do. There are doctors for their heads, and their friends should be calling them asap. They are delusional & likely very, very dangerous, or does that only work with patriots?
Someone got away with killing innocent Americans, then laws that violated our constitution, under threat of martial law came down in the form of the so called patriot act, then tsa searches, wiretapping, detainment of Americans without cause, accuser, trial, and indefinate detention… Now drones can watch you in your yard, as your cellphones & appliances watch you as closely as a red light camera. Wake the frak up!
In the HBO documentary…Larry Silverstein the building's owner says of building 7 'We made the decision to pull the building" what does that mean exactly?
HEY 13FALLS…EXPLAIN 2.46 SECONDS OF FREE FALL ACCELERATION…MUST BE NICE TO LIVE IN DENIAL!!!
Dr. Pepper? Wow, was he the guy that invented the soda?
In bringing up the BBC's premature report of WTC's collapse, Graeme MacQueen withholds the key fact that the collapse of WTC 7 was expected and the media knew it. News channels were talking about the expected collapse all afternoon. That was the context in which the reporter said she thought WTC 7 had already collapsed. So she got her signals crossed and thought it already had collapsed. Big deal. It's dishonest of MacQueen to omit the fact that the media expected the collapse.
MacQueen says there was certainty about WTC 7's collapse, but of course he doesn't quote these guys:
"We were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control & imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD PO Edward McQuade
"They asked us to fall back again due to the potential of 7 WTC collapsing." -Fire Captain Robert Sohmer
Note the words "probable" and "potential." Those are terms of uncertainty, but MacQueen ignores them because they undermine his CD theory. Charlatan.
The firefighters reported the building was leaning and creaking. They saw it was unstable and confirmed it by using a transit. These firefighters weren't lying. They lost 343 of their own that day. They weren't part of any plot or cover-up.
The statements of the firefighters are a huge thorn in the side of the truthers, who are forced to make absurd, unsubstantiated claims about the firefighters being controlled or paid off or forced to say something they didn't believe. Bullshit.
NDAA 2012 was here.
@NDAA2012
Section 1021 and 1022 have been called a violation of constitutional principles and of the Bill of Rights – Curated by Randy L. Dixon Rivera
Guantánamo Bay, Cuba ·
Can you post agian the video? last 8 minutes of it cant see. It jsut stops at 1:12:02
Just thinking about it makes me sick… Humans really can do anything…
Teach your children not to be afraid of Ghost. Teach them to be afraid of other humans, because they can do scary things.
Prof MacQueen gets the stamp of approval from William Pepper – these are reasonable men and among the first truth-seekers I would have present evidence to Congress or Oprah or whomever. First and best deligation of these two should be to The Hague & if only Mme. Louise Arbour were still there, magistrate of ICC. Get Larry S, or Mayo Shattuck to explain his doings .
Don't forget, NIST gets their paycheck from whom they are investigating: the government. Conflict of interest. Did anyone expect NIST to say, "Our findings are: WE DID IT!"???
It's impossible to know WTC7 was going to collapse without foreknowledge of an inside job. A steel frame skyscraper never collapsed due to office fires (it wasn't hit by a plane). So, quoting firemen who the building was "likely to collapse", would've been quoting someone who had foreknowledge or was told by someone with foreknowledge of the "collapse". Also, YOU are ignoring what he's saying, if you're just keying on that one thing. Do you think random "office fires" did this?
It's impossible to know WTC7 was going to collapse without foreknowledge of an inside job. A steel frame skyscraper never collapsed due to office fires (it wasn't hit by a plane). So, quoting firemen who the building was "likely to collapse", would've been quoting someone who had foreknowledge or was told by someone with foreknowledge of the "collapse".
Graeme MacQueen makes it sound like the firefighters were a bunch of raving zombies mindlessly repeating that someone else told them WTC 7 was going to collapse, as if they didn't make the determination themselves. In fact, there are a number of firefighters who commented that the building was unstable and likely to collapse. MacQueen ignores these comments because they are contrary to his predetermined CD opinion. I expect better from an academic.
He lied. Brahmin my ass.
Ask any Hindu from India if Sunder is a Brahmin. His name gives it away, as do his mannerisms and way of talking. It is just like you can tell people are from New York.
He actually DID tell the truth when confronted by David Chandler; his final report acknowledged 2.25 seconds, or 25 meters, of free fall. He did NOT mention the IMPLICATIONS of 25 meters of free fall: that a 25 meter segment of vertical support was suddenly removed from all over the base of the structure.
He's lying. (Brahmin my ass)
If people do not want to find the real answer then we must conclude the real answer is not helpful to their cause.
Dr. Sunder is an arrogant and condescending man, but he is careful not to actually LIE. Why? He is a Brahmin, a member of the Hindu caste composed of priests and scholars. Brahmins have moral duty not to flat-out lie, but they can spin and obfuscate for their "host". Dr. Sunder's "host" is NIST and the US government.
He really is between a rock and a hard place.
what are you so afraid of?
fill in the blank: from beginning to end, the collapse of WTC7 took no less than _______ seconds.
"the 2.25 seconds is timed as the roofline drops – which is when the building falls"
wrong. the collapse begins internally, unseen. the first part of the collapse you can see is when the east penthouse collapses into the building.
just because truther sites never show the east penthouse, doesn't mean the east penthouse doesn't exist and wasn't part of the building and wasn't part of the collapse.
believe it or not, reality trumps deceptively edited truther videos.
"which is impossible according to newton's third law for a building to do"
ok, then explain how the 2.25 sec of free fall = controlled demolition
before you do, did you know that free fall does NOT occur in controlled demolition? look it up.
then, explain how 2.25 sec, which would not occur in CD, happened here and is proof of CD.
not one truther has ever explained this. can you?
@mooners
"regardless of how long you think…"- not how long I think it took, how long it did take. we don't know exactly how long, but we do know it took at least a minimum of 14 sec
"and the building 'falls' when the roofline drops"-playing word games? the collapse begins internally and becomes visually apparent as the east penthouse collapses into the building. then there is a pause in what you can see, then the rest of the building drops
if you disagree, explain why.
fill in the blank: from beginning to end, the collapse of WTC7 took no less than _______ seconds.
regardless of how long you think the total collapse took – we can all see the footage of the day – and the building 'falls' when the roofline drops- it's very simple – and it falls in about 7 seconds – 2.25 of that is free-fall – which is impossible according to newton's third law for a building to do – simple – you can't accept that physics can't lie – and you can't understand basic physics – or realise that nist have been caught in a lie – educate yourself
"the building fell at the rate of gravity in a vacuum"
wrong again, truther. if you wrote "the building fell at the rate of gravity in a vacuum for 2.25 seconds out of the 14+ second collaspe" you'd be right.
but you can't accept that the fact that there was only 2.25 sec of ff and the entire collapse took over 14 seconds, can you?
well, can you?
fill in the blank: from beginning to end, the collapse of WTC7 took no less than _______ seconds.
" i inferred that YOU have to believe that fire can make a building fall faster than explosives" me
and you were wrong on that count as well." you said
the building fell at the rate of gravity in a vacuum – therefore you believe that fire CANNOT make a building fall faster than explosives? If was wrong then you must think that – how can this be so ? And if it is what caused the collapse at free-fall acceleration? lol – you don't even understand your own head
the 2.25 seconds is timed as the roofline drops – which is when the building falls – as seen in the video – only an idiot would say that a building was falling when something inside it collapsed as per a cd – but oh yes – it's you lol –
and 2.25 seonds of a total collapse of abotu 7 seconds is an enormous amount – besides free-fall is an impossibility accoriding to newton's third law and the conservation of momentum – therefore all other of your shit nonsense is moot
2and there is none visible in wtc7 during the collapse – and no inferno filmed on the day" that is what i sid you dumb fuck – you quoted me – and then you said that "so you're saying there was no fire at all at WTC7?" how the fuck do you leap from the two? i said what i said – you fuckin retard post footage of an inferno and define it – it involves flames – lol – and fire cannot make a building fall faster than explosives – /watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U – try responding lol
" i inferred that YOU have to believe that fire can make a building fall faster than explosives"
and you were wrong on that count as well.
you just can't get past the fact that, despite 2.25 sec of freefall acceleration, the entire collapse took more than 14 seconds, can you?
so, like most truthtards, you don't even know what it is you're railing against.
straw man arguments: the foundation of trutherism
"remember fire is a random process – organic – and there is none visible in wtc7 during the collapse – and no inferno filmed on the day"
so you're saying there was no fire at all at WTC7?
you are well on your way to becoming the next jared loughner, the truther shooter of tuscon, az.
you are so hopelessly out of touch with reality that you might be dangerous.
no fires at 7, that is what you just said.
you are either stupid, blind or insane. kill yourself.
/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U and notice at the end the neat positioning of the building – remember fire is a random process – organic – and there is none visible in wtc7 during the collapse – and no inferno filmed on the day yet the inferno of wtc5 was flimed – the emperor has no clothes – but you think he's wearing the best ones – lol
you should listen to thos guys and check out the info – they are not liars – you just don't like the truth –
"i never said that " in reference to not saying it – i inferred that YOU have to believe that fire can make a building fall faster than explosives in order to believe the official story – this doesn't seem to be a problem for you tho – why is that ? /watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U this video analysis again proves free-fall – as if in vacuum- because of fire? ha
"can you spot when people are lying to you?"
yes. either alex jones or dylan avery or jerkoff bermas' mouths are moving. that's how I know a lie. same with truthtards. they are either too dumb to know the bullshit they are parroting is bullshit, or too pathetic to admit when they are wrong so they lie.
"what makes you think that fire can make a building fall faster than explosives?" – I never said that.
but why let that get in the way? truthers LOVE strawman arguments.
dont ask me to look at videos if you've just ignored a question I asked. that's not how it works.
did you look up Fiterman Hall? how have you missed that in all your "research"?
did you look at overhead photos showing 7 partially piled up against the building across the street? how can it be "symmetrical" given that?
free fall does not occur in controlled demo. the 2.25 sec is an anomaly just as unlikely with CD.
get to those and I'll comment on the vids
watch?v=VIPiseqbZzg – can you spot when people are lying to you?
watch?v=CTAeKVul3uA – what makes you think that fire can make a building fall faster than explosives?? please tell
total collapse was about 7 seconds timed when the roofline drops – which is when the building falls – it falls symmetrically as seen in the videos of the day just pick one – and into its own footprint neatly – fire is not neat and certainly does not make a whole building fall as one – check history
your beliefs are blind faith in the liars of nist and the lies of their unscientifc and false report – why don't you read Griffin's book on wtc7? Ever read a book?
@mooners
"cd is the only method of removing all support instantaneously" – complete bullshit. NOTHING can make this happen. free fall does not occur in controlled demolition.
"..a free-fall symmetrical collapse…" - did not happen. it was free fall for 2.25 sec out of the total collapse time of approx 14 sec. "symmetrical" is false as proven by damage to Fiterman Hall (ever hear of it?) and easy to find photos of 7 piled up against the bldng across the street
your beliefs rest on falsehoods
cd is the only method of removing all support instantaneously – for wtc7 to fall as we see it on the day all of the support would have had to have been removed at the same time – for a free-fall symmetrical collapse – – in science the simplest hypothesis is looked at first – it looks like a cd – did nist test for accelerants and interview witnesses of explosions? No – this is not scientific – and not the least of their crimes
also, I noticed you ducked something a few posts back….
you: "The whole of wtc7 as seen in any of the videos of its collapse – collapsed at the rate of freefall…"
I posted the link to the entire collapse, including the east penthouse that nearly all truther sites leave out.
care to comment on that? if you looked, was it the first time you ever saw the east penthouse? if not, how can you think the entire building came down at free fall speed? can you explain that?