Nine Eleven 9/11 9th Sept 2001

Can anyone explain what happened to building 7???


As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[31]:18 (PDF p. 22) and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[6]:16, 18 The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41.

The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water.[32]:11 Additionally, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[33]:23–30

1 Like

How was it that it was able to collapse within its own footprint?


Yes, somebody does

That is unintelligible…

No it’s not. There many, easy to find explanations. Look them up.

Can anyone explain the high volume of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines days leading up to 9/11?

And we have this. Can someone explain how the BBC reported that building 7 had collapsed when it hadnt at the time??

djtexas stop with the conspiracy theories now. There is no truth to what you are saying and yes, I watched the video. Dailymotion did not show it reported before it fell. Either stop or you won’t be posting on this forum any more.

The arrow in the video points to WTC 7 still standing when the reportor has said it has collapsed. The rally on put options really happened.

I didn’t see it, but you know people can photoshop videos too.

Democracy now had a show on it and time stamped the clip to show it wasn’t doctored

Tactic one of the CRAZY MAKERS - Toss out any insinuating nonsense framed as serious question. No need to provide any ground work, no explanations, no details, just insinuation with the big unanswered questions. How much more proof of deliberate wrong doing is needed. Just the whiff, the idea, is enough to metastasize into another dark horror.

PS. Found this at Snopes:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.
For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.
A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.

The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.


Carpenter, Dave. “Option Exchange Probing Reports of Unusual Trading Before Attacks.”
The Associated Press. 18 September 2001.

Schoolman, Judith. “Probe of Wild Market Swings in Terror-Tied Stocks.”
New York Daily News. 20 September 2001 (p. 6).

Toedtman, James and Charles Zehren. “Profiting from Terror?”
Newsday. 19 September 2001 (p. W39).

Of course, Snopes might be a diabolical agent intent on selling us a bill of good, but at least they offer some details and a hint of where to start digging for yourself if you want to learn more. While some, like Tex here, act as if the insinuation is all that matters.
For them it is, since they rarely have defendable facts on their side.

Can’t link it to AQ so dismissed. No further investigation into the activity. Nothing to see here case closed

A) What a minute? That’s what you have? One copied news cast? A time signature, our clock, that I didn’t even see on the screen?
B) Makes me wonder why the wonder Truther trio, at University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) Leroy Hulsey, Feng Xiao, and Zhili Quan, don’t mention it?
C) I’m no expert, still seems there were enough eyes and cameras to witness that collapse, plus I’m sure a seismic record of the event exists on many regional Earth quake monitors - so . . .

Gravity. Don’t you know it pulls things straight down? Or does it work differently in Texas?

Well then how about checking out this article by Lee Teschler | Executive Editor at Design World

What 9/11 truthers do during a pandemic
April 24, 2020

Interesting article you might consider reading, it’s final paragraphs read:

Consider that the NIST WTC investigation report lists 12 investigators, 77 technical contributors, five expert consultants, and about 120 technical contractors. The FEMA report on the collapse lists 27 team members. Other outside investigators have examined WTC building 7 events as well. As part of a lawsuit in 2010, a structural engineering firm analyzed the collapse for the plaintiff and claimed fire, lateral bracing code violations, and “structural vulnerabilities” caused the building’s demise. Another engineering firm working for the building owner (the defendant) said fire, not construction practices, constituted the main cause. And over the years, researchers examining aspects of the WTC collapse have published several articles in the American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Engineering Mechanics . None of these works mentioned evidence of the simultaneous failure scenario posited by AE911Truth.

In contrast, the recent WTC building 7 report from AE911Truth was authored by three researchers who, in essence, are saying the small army of engineers and scientists who previously examined the evidence are completely wrong. Interestingly, in 2011 NIST, perhaps exasperated with the various conspiracy theories about WTC events, put out an FAQ addressing these ideas.

The latest AE911Truth report may make interesting reading for FEA nerds, but on this one I’ll just go with Occam’s razor: When presented with competing hypotheses, go with the one with the fewest assumptions. In this case, you might amend this advice to say, going with the one that doesn’t involve ignoring years of careful analysis by multiple experts. DW

FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Links to full NIST reports on its WTC 7 Investigation: NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9A.

Another riddle?
But yeah, Case Closed, that’s what the experts are trying to explain to youz folks.

The demolition artists of WTC1 and WTC2 weren’t quite accurate enough and when they brought them down, debris fell on #7 causing fatal damage.


It also was pre-wired to go down because of all the sensitive, revealing and damaging documents housed there. They were just waiting for the right time to drop it. And of course the news media was informed of this ahead of time that this was going to happen.

Is that what you want to hear?
Which is your preferred conspiracy?
Or are you insinuating something else?
Maybe Godzilla knocked it down as he was fleeing the chaos of WTC1 and 2.

:rofl: This one is my favourite. I like this conspiracy.

Thanks CC. I’ve lost interest in answering questions about this. I “did my own research” and can’t find anything that leaves me with lingering doubts. I’ve engaged many a person who has those doubts, and found they want to have them. And they want me to have them, to make themselves feel better.

Why are you giving me 2008, 2010, 2012 reports? No plane hit building 7 therefore no jet fuel to reach 700 degrees c. There has been a new analysis of building 7 collapse
In the context of fires i.e. embers = debris as NIST says. Article:

Later on in this article it says:

Further, he says, the debris from WTC 1 which fell 943 feet to WTC 7 did not attain sufficient mass to cause structural damage to the steel in that building.

Seems clear. No structural significance.