Massive Times Square Billboard to Show Video of WTC 7 Destruction During 9/11 Anniversary

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Another failed attempt to sow distrust among the people of their government.
Taken straight out of the communist manifesto playbook.
Putin couldn't have trained them any better when he was head of KGB.

wow i don't think old GWB could have said it any better himself.....or is that you mr bush

That video is simply crap. Everyone knows CNN and the BBC travelled back in time to warn us of the collapse. They should be considered heros and everyone should watch them all day.

a reply to: hellobruce

First an apology for the link; it sends you to the home page. You will have to put in 'How Building Implosions Work' in the site search bar - it will be the first result.

Except there is no evidence of explosives being used... Just some windows breaking during the collapse and air being expelled from the building...

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear i was not trying to prove anything other than that this statement

Demolition charges go of BEFORE a building starts to collapse, not after...

is false.

But as for no evidence... well
1. there is the way the building fell - not possible with out explosives. ( look up building implosions on youtube then look up buildings collapsing by other means - natural, fire which is what the official report claims, etc.)
2. there is the melted steel - not possible with out explosives.
3. there is the number of people who testified (not claimed - there is a difference) that they heard explosives
4. the number of people who testified they heard emergency workers (both cops and firemen) telling people more explosions were coming (there may be actual footage of them doing so, but I am new to researching this topic)

On top of that there is the supporting evidence that it was preplanned - pretty much only possible with explosives:
1. Steel and concrete buildings that collapse from fire - the official cause of the collapse - are seen to burn a very long time before the fire is hot enough to collapse them. Just look it up.
2. The number of news people who knew the building was going to collapse before they should have if it collapsed by the means given. This is easy to verify looking at the news footage.
3. The fact as testified by people in the building that they were evacuated BEFORE WTC1 and 2 were hit. Verifiable as well just by looking up the interviews. There is a video of one of them Barry Jennings above who not only says these thing but states that he he testified to them.
4. then there is the fact that usually you do NOT see the actual explosions when a building is demolished by them - that is only in movies. Verifiable by typing in demolition implosions on youtube.


I am NOT saying this proves anything. I am saying this is EVIDENCE. Evidence is something that needs to be weighed and considered with the goal of coming to a conclusion. You know, because you said there was no evidence in the above quote.

When you look up the demolition implosions on youtube you see a lot of windows breaking and air being expelled from buildings. just sayin.

The sheeples shepherd speaks absolute shepherd talk, but fails to convince real people.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: CaticusMaximus

Truther crap = nonsense.

Millions of tons of material came crashing to the ground from two towers of amazing height, ya lets call fake and not even consider what that would do to the stability of footings in nearby structures on land that was reclaimed from swamp when built.

Any building built on swampland has a foundation that penetrates the soft ground using steel and concrete piles. These piles drive firmly into the solid rock beneath.

No building is thrown up onto a swamp, let alone a skyscraper.

Secondly, would you like to reveal to the world how your imagined unstable building suddenly fell to the floor. If one of the corners were to fail, then the building would have fell unevenly.

Your explanations are so far from reality they are laughable.

Make your tiny mind up as to the cause of the failure, was it the waste basket fires, or the wobbly skyscraper that was dislodged by a swamp?

Convince me.

I think amongst the people who are on the side of those that do not believe, there are many with willful ignorance.

Subconsciously or consciously, they have a sense of what is going on, but they play along viewing themselves as the ones who will receive benefit.

By 'what is going on', I mean all of the activities, not just 9/11. I don't think there are too many people who truly believe that our many decades of presence, activity and involvement in the Middle East are for purely benevolent motives, but they play along as a team member.

a reply to: hellobruce


Ok, now You are really starting to reach for anything to stay above the surface of the water. First You admit that indeed Demolition Charges were used, then you backpeddle by saying they are supposed to go off before a building comes down. LadyAmarella Showed how it happens at both times. Before and during the building coming down.
Why then, if this was NOT all preplanned, did they have the charges in the building?!?!?

END of discussion. Since you ended what barely constitutes as a discussion earlier by admitting 'we' are right as far as charges being in the building. Thanx for your time on this matter. Syx.

a reply to: LadyAmarella

Lady, Thank You for backing Me on the claim of charges being pre placed in the building. (well in a way you did back me.)
I know you mainly wanted to show how false Bruce's statement was, but that in itself was kinda like backing me up.
I appreciate it!
Bruce even finally admitted to charges being in that building! LOL!!!

originally posted by: SyxPak
First You admit that indeed Demolition Charges were used,

Here we have a truther telling lies again - exactly where did I admit demo charges were used on 9/11? Nowhere, but as we have seen you cannot argue against the facts, so you just make crap up.

then you backpeddle by saying they are supposed to go off before a building comes down.

If you had read what was posted, I said demo charges go off BEFORE a building starts to collapse in a controlled demolition. At the WTC we have windows breaking and air being expelled from the building due to the collapse.

Why then, if this was NOT all preplanned, did they have the charges in the building?!?!?

There were no charges in the building - how could they install them with no one noticing? You obviously have no clue at all how long it takes and what work is involved in laying demo charges. You seem to get your "information" from James Bond movies, when to explode a building all you have to do is attach egg timers to a few walls.

by admitting 'we' are right as far as charges being in the building.

Again you are telling lies - where exactly did I say that?

a reply to: hellobruce

There were no charges in the building - how could they install them with no one noticing? You obviously have no clue at all how long it takes and what work is involved in laying demo charges. You seem to get your "information" from James Bond movies, when to explode a building all you have to do is attach egg timers to a few walls.

Actually, in the documentary I posted earlier in the thread, there was a reported power cut in the towers on the weekend before the attack.

Also, at least 2 witnesses reported "loud banging and movement of heavy objects" in the supposedly empty office floor space above them in the week before the attack.

Merely saying that there were opportunities there, if the theory is accurate.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
there was a reported power cut in the towers on the weekend before the attack.

Just another silly story made up by truthers.

www.911myths.com...
and
911review.com...

Also, at least 2 witnesses reported "loud banging and movement of heavy objects" in the supposedly empty office floor space above them in the week before the attack.

Names of witnesses? Which building, which floor? How did they get the explosives past the bomb sniffing dogs?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP




Truther crap = nonsense.

Millions of tons of material came crashing to the ground from two towers of amazing height, ya lets call fake and not even consider what that would do to the stability of footings in nearby structures on land that was reclaimed from swamp when built.

Putting that garbage on a big screen on the anniversary of the disaster is a propaganda event which its only intention is to sow the seeds of doubt in govt, can't get a better definition of communist manifesto doctrine implementation than that.

Take it from an engineer, you have NO CLUE what you're talking about.

First of all, every tall building on Manhattan is anchored into SOLID GRANITE BEDROCK.

Buildings are not solid steel or concrete. They are hollow. Essentially like a tall sheetmetal filing cabinet.

Here are the WTC's : www.firetown.com...

Them falling and smashing into the granite bedrock would disturb the footings of WTC7 about as much as smashing a filing cabinet into your driveway would make your mailbox fall over.

Furthermore, my company specializes in structural steel components. I can tell you for a FACT. With zero uncertainly that burning jet fuel and office furniture will not melt A36 structural steel!

In fact, GASOLINE burns substantially hotter than jet fuel (which is essentially kerosine, or diesel) and still would not be hot enough to melt A46 without the use of an accelerant.

a reply to: hellobruce

Right Here Bruce You admitted to charges being in that building! In your comment to me. In the Video I posted You can clearly see the squibs going off.
Then;
At 1:45 this morning You posted...... "Of course you ignore the fact that they went off after the building started to collapse..."
The phrase YOU used , "......They went off......" states that charges were indeed used, as shown in that video.
You did not say that in general those charges are supposed to go off before a building comes down.

Thanx for Your backing of my statement Bruce! It takes a real human to admit when they are wrong.
I appreciate that you proved yourself human.

a reply to: LadyAmarella

originally posted by: LadyAmarella

On top of that there is the supporting evidence ..
1. Steel and concrete buildings that collapse from fire - the official cause of the collapse - are seen to burn a very long time before the fire is hot enough to collapse them. Just look it up.

Never in the history of the Earth has a steel frame building or skyscraper collapsed due to a fire, not even once. On Sept 11, 2001, three of them fell, allegedly due to fire.

.. 3 skyscrapers.. for the first time in all of history, due to fire.. all on the same day. Nothing suspicious there..

originally posted by: SyxPak
The phrase YOU used , "......They went off......"

You really are having a reading comprehension problem, I was talking about the windows breaking and air being expelled by the building collapsing....

Thanx for Your backing of my statement Bruce!

Still making things up, I see. But that is all truther can do, as they have no facts, just lies and silly stories!

Of course you ignore this fact I posted..."Demolition charges go of BEFORE a building starts to collapse, not after"

As that fact also destroys your silly claims!

a reply to: 8675309jenny

I agree with every word Jenny has said...

From a fellow engineer.

originally posted by: nOraKat
Never in the history of the Earth has a steel frame building or skyscraper collapsed due to a fire, not even once.

How many were hit by a high speed heavy jet airliner?

None, of course, but it appears if a high speed heavy jet airliner hits a steel framed building it collapses. WTC 7 was severely damaged and had unchecked fires burning for hours before it collapsed.

originally posted by: Watchfull
a reply to: 8675309jenny

I agree with every word Jenny has said...

From a fellow engineer.

No one claimed that the fire melted steel....

originally posted by: nOraKat

originally posted by: LadyAmarella

On top of that there is the supporting evidence that it was preplanned - pretty much only possible with explosives:
1. Steel and concrete buildings that collapse from fire - the official cause of the collapse - are seen to burn a very long time before the fire is hot enough to collapse them. Just look it up.

Never in the history of the Earth has a steel frame building or skyscraper collapsed due to a fire, not even once. On Sept 11, 2001, three of them collapsed, allegedly due to fire, for the first time in history.

.. all on the same day, 3 skyscrapers.. for the first time in history..

cmon now jet fuel burns hotter than normal fuel,clearly enough to melt metal into liquid and surely it is obvious by now that some of that jet fuel bounced over to wt7 and caused it to fall too....and factor in that building are built to fall it all makes perfect sense

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
there was a reported power cut in the towers on the weekend before the attack.

Just another silly story made up by truthers.

www.911myths.com...
and
911review.com...

Also, at least 2 witnesses reported "loud banging and movement of heavy objects" in the supposedly empty office floor space above them in the week before the attack.

Names of witnesses? Which building, which floor? How did they get the explosives past the bomb sniffing dogs?

William Rodriguez and Scott Forbes, with the latter describing:

"Floors shaking due to what sounded like pneumatic drilling... and heavy objects being moved"

Or go to 3hours 28 mins on this video if you don't believe me:



The people are real and they also describe the power cuts.