Remembering Building 7

[Hades]

9/11: Short WTC7 Video Compilation

Just use your eyes and watch the collapse. Most people don't know or remember that building 7 went down. The footage never gets shown and the topic is never discussed. I had to go to Bitchute to find a short clip of the collapse. I used to be able to find a short clip on Youtube that just showed the collapse without commentary. I wonder why it disappeared?

After 911 the public had a lot of questions about what happened and who exactly did it. The official narrative on building 7 is that it collapsed due to office fires. The sitting president from the red side launched an investigation. In 2004, The 911 Commission Report was released. I stated that the official narrative is correct as always. Building 7 is not discussed in the report. Must have been an oversight.

This would have been a perfect time for the blue people in DC to demand answers for their blue constituents. This happened on the red watch and the red people ordered the investigation. Maybe now is a good time for the blue people to contact their representatives and ask for some answers. Maybe blue people and red people should collectively demand answers. With enough voices we could get a promise of declassification of important documents. The process of declassification does take time. There are a lot of agencies that have to get together and coordinate the times of their coffee breaks and other things. They have to dig through old files in the basement. Just blowing the dust of them could take months.

Hannity would report the impending release of documents. It will be a bombshell. There will be indictments and people will go to jail. Tick-Tock. Maddow would report that far right-wing extremists are seeking the declassification of these documents. They think there is something to see here. Everyone knows there is nothing to see here. Let's all take a moment to laugh at these loons. Haha.

Sometime between yesterday and never the big day would finally come. Woo-hoo, it's declass day! The documents look like this:

It was found that the [Redacted] of the co[ Redacted ]ing 7 was ex[ Redacted ]ed on supp[Redacted]mns of t[Redacted]ure. It was found that the resp[ Redacted ]ies included, j[ Redacted ]and [ Redacted ].

There must be redactions due to national security, of course. We can't just tip our hat to the enemy.

Red and blue politicians alike, now have cameras shoved in their faces as they celebrate a great victory for the people. The people wanted answers and they got them. It was a bipartisan effort of epic proportions. Blue reached across the isle to red, they embraced with big sloppy kisses and made the system work. What a great day for America.

Make sure you vote people, because it works. The red ones are on your side. Or was that the blue ones? Or was it the blue ones and now it's the red ones. Or was it the red ones and now it's the blue ones. Oh....I get so co[Redacted]ed.

[Lem]

9/11: Short WTC7 Video Compilation

Just use your eyes and watch the collapse. Most people don't know or remember that building 7 went down. The footage never gets shown and the topic is never discussed. I had to go to Bitchute to find a short clip of the collapse. I used to be able to find a short clip on Youtube that just showed the collapse without commentary. I wonder why it disappeared?

After 911 the public had a lot of questions about what happened and who exactly did it. The official narrative on building 7 is that it collapsed due to office fires. The sitting president from the red side launched an investigation. In 2004, The 911 Commission Report was released. I stated that the official narrative is correct as always. Building 7 is not discussed in the report. Must have been an oversight.

Did you see the 2008 report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology? Here’s the abstract:

Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A)

PublishedNovember 20, 2008

Author(s)
Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, Richard G. Gann, William L. Grosshandler, Hai S. Lew, Richard W. Bukowski, Fahim Sadek, Frank W. Gayle, John L. Gross, Therese P. McAllister, Jason D. Averill, James R. Lawson, Harold E. Nelson, Stephen A. Cauffman

Abstract

This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7; an evaluation of the building evacuation and emergency response procedures; what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the building; and areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision. Also in this report is a summary of how NIST reached its conclusions. NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first- person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence. The report concludes with a list of 13 recommendations for action in the areas of increased structural integrity, enhanced fire endurance of structures, new methods for fire resistant design of structures, enhanced active fire protection, improved emergency response, improved procedures and practices, and education and training. One of these is new; the other 12 are reiterated from the investigation into the collapse of the towers. Each of the 13 is relevant to WTC 7.

CitationNational Construction Safety Team Act Reports (NIST NCSTAR) -
NIST Pub Series

[Hades]

Did you see the 2008 report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology? Here’s the abstract:

Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A)

PublishedNovember 20, 2008

Author(s)
Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, Richard G. Gann, William L. Grosshandler, Hai S. Lew, Richard W. Bukowski, Fahim Sadek, Frank W. Gayle, John L. Gross, Therese P. McAllister, Jason D. Averill, James R. Lawson, Harold E. Nelson, Stephen A. Cauffman

Abstract

This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7; an evaluation of the building evacuation and emergency response procedures; what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the building; and areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision. Also in this report is a summary of how NIST reached its conclusions. NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first- person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence. The report concludes with a list of 13 recommendations for action in the areas of increased structural integrity, enhanced fire endurance of structures, new methods for fire resistant design of structures, enhanced active fire protection, improved emergency response, improved procedures and practices, and education and training. One of these is new; the other 12 are reiterated from the investigation into the collapse of the towers. Each of the 13 is relevant to WTC 7.

CitationNational Construction Safety Team Act Reports (NIST NCSTAR) -
NIST Pub Series

Use your eyes, watch it fall. The building fell uniformly. The supporting structure gave way uniformly with perfect timing. Do you think you could light a similar building on fire and achieve a similar result?

And you thought science couldn't be bought.

[Lem]

Did you see the 2008 report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology? Here’s the abstract:

Use your eyes, watch it fall. The building fell uniformly. The supporting structure gave way uniformly with perfect timing. Do you think you could light a similar building on fire and achieve a similar result?

And you thought science couldn't be bought.

There is no science in deciding what happened by watching a short clip showing the outside of a building for only a few seconds. Did you read the report? It addresses your points fully. If you have an opinion about the science behind the report, I'd be happy to hear it, but "use your eyes" is not a valid approach to understanding what happened.

[Hades]

There is no science in deciding what happened by watching a short clip showing the outside of a building for only a few seconds. Did you read the report? It addresses your points fully. If you have an opinion about the science behind the report, I'd be happy to hear it, but "use your eyes" is not a valid approach to understanding what happened.

I have read the report. I have also read this report. A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 Although it has been a while since I read them. Which group of scientists do you believe? Is one of the groups a group of hacks? I'm saying, I think science can be bought. Just like anything else it's a commodity that can be bought and paid for. Imagine if you are a scientist and your livelihood depends on this report your putting out. If it says one thing your contract continues. If it says something else, you lose funding and you don't know where the next gig is.

I'm saying I could go on television, if they would give me air time, tell you I'm a scientist with letters after my name and you would believe anything I said. Why is that? Have we been programmed to believe scientists? Where does that leave us. That leaves us to use our eyes and our minds. Think about it. Do you think a demolition that perfect could be planned by using fire? Demolition experts take months to plan one of these using explosives. Do you think it could just happen by chance? Maybe it could. Maybe I'm 100% wrong. Maybe what I'm really asking is, why are we so prone to buy whatever is presented to us by authority without question?

[Lem]

There is no science in deciding what happened by watching a short clip showing the outside of a building for only a few seconds. Did you read the report? It addresses your points fully. If you have an opinion about the science behind the report, I'd be happy to hear it, but "use your eyes" is not a valid approach to understanding what happened.

I have read the report. I have also read this report. A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 Although it has been a while since I read them. Which group of scientists do you believe? Is one of the groups a group of hacks? I'm saying, I think science can be bought. Just like anything else it's a commodity that can be bought and paid for. Imagine if you are a scientist and your livelihood depends on this report your putting out. If it says one thing your contract continues. If it says something else, you lose funding and you don't know where the next gig is.

I'm saying I could go on television, if they would give me air time, tell you I'm a scientist with letters after my name and you would believe anything I said. Why is that? Have we been programmed to believe scientists? Where does that leave us. That leaves us to use our eyes and our minds. Think about it. Do you think a demolition that perfect could be planned by using fire? Demolition experts take months to plan one of these using explosives. Do you think it could just happen by chance? Maybe it could. Maybe I'm 100% wrong. Maybe what I'm really asking is, why are we so prone to buy whatever is presented to us by authority without question?

You do realize that the difference between the two reports is that one concludes a progressive failure of the structure, the other a global failure of the structure. NEITHER concludes the collapse was caused by explosives, as you are concluding, not because of research but because you looked at a short video.

I'm saying I could go on television, if they would give me air time, tell you I'm a scientist with letters after my name and you would believe anything I said.

Not a chance.

Maybe what I'm really asking is, why are we so prone to buy whatever is presented to us by authority without question?

Speak for yourself. In this case, I read both those reports when they first came out and were being discussed. I looked into the underlying science, and reviewed the graphs and data. I didn't 'just believe.'

Looking at a short video instead of reading the research, and then arguing one's eyes can see better than science can explain, is being gullible. I'm curious why some people are so prone to buying without question what is presented by quacks.

[Hades]

John Kerry Admits WTC 7 Was a Controlled Demolition

[Lem]

John Kerry Admits WTC 7 Was a Controlled Demolition

Come on. There’s no point in even looking at this. It's obvious where it came from and that it is another part of this conspiracy theory nonsense. I will quote one comment from Snopes' discussion group on this clip that is good advice for this entire thread:

First rule of identifying fake news: is it broadcast on an indie YouTube channel produced in someone's basement? You are looking at fake news.
Second rule of fake news: is it telling you, someone without specific training of expertise in a field, to use "your common sense" to assess the veracity of someone's claims that should require specialized training? You are watching fake news...
Please stop listening to BS on YouTube.

https://hu-hu.Facebook.com/groups/44133 ... 8127126223

[Gadianton]

Note that Hades did not come to his beliefs about building 7 by his own powers of observation. He came to his beliefs by reading materials produced by other people who wrap their arguments in catchy phrases like "inside job". Isn't Hades afraid he's being programmed? Steven Jones, the go-to guy for the demolition theory has a phd in physics. That established his credibility. Hades is merely following authority. Perhaps an alternative authority, but an authority none the less.

[Hades]

I have to admit, my mind is so full of conspiracy theories I have to review. It has been a while since I went over this conspiracy subject. I think I had read of Steven Jones, but I had to go to Wikipedia for a refresher. I also knew there was a group of architects and engineers who question the official narrative of 911, but I hadn't been to their website in sometime either. They have a petition.

Pet 1.JPG

You can find it here The AE911Truth Petition

That's quite a few conspiracy theorists, and they're from the smart people class. This isn't Average Joe Hades trying to make sense of things by using his own eyes and mind. These are people who study building making. It's an international effort. You can find smart people from other countries. I don't know how many countries, because it would take some time to go through that many names. But, we can dismiss them all by #conspiracytheory. Whew, I feel better now. I can go back to my regularly scheduled program of, "The Official Narrative is Always True".

I did take note, from the Wikipedia pages of Steven E. Jones and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, of how the conspiracy terminology is thrown around. It's almost as if it's strategically placed to be dismissive of any actual question that might come up. Don't take my word for it. What would I know? You'll have to look for yourself, or not, it could be uncomfortable.

If you would like to see more conspiracy evidence from the conspiracy architects & engineers you can find it here Key Evidence of Controlled Demolition. This is for entertainment purposes only. It is to be viewed as "Lord of the Rings" or some other fantasy.

Personally, I would like to see the petition play out. Let's have a truly independent investigation with subpoena powers. Let the games begin. Do I think it will happen? Not in a million years. Wouldn't the blue team or the red team want to see this happen to restore the confidence of the people in government? Or is it all one team? #conspiracytheory

I am ready to put this to bed. I have seen the error of my ways. I will now accept the official narrative as 100% true. I can leave the conspiracy surrounding this subject in much more capable hands. I also swear off watching Alex Jones. It was the Snopes that did it for me. Wait, isn't Snopes the blue version of Alex Jones? #conspiracytheory