Should we just focus on Building 7?

a reply to: ISawItFirst

Thermite can be addressed to paint

I remember watching a documentary were Richard Gage made this claim that the thermite could have been "painted on"

Two things, firstly there is no solid evidence that thermite was used.

Secondly even if we ignore the first point, how would this "painted on" thermite be shaped and detonated.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I agree with you that Tower 7 is the smoking gun. I have brought this up in several of my older posts. I even had a post with some rare footage of someone walking the streets and filming at the base of tower 7. But the part of the video that got a lot of attention was when the man filming approached an officer and the cops had blocked off the streets surrounding building 7 saying to leave the area as the building was going to come down. Forgive me for not posting the link to that post as I'm on my IPhone. Also, I want to remind you that another huge clue about why building 7 came down has a lot do with the tenants of that building. SEC, Secret Service, Homeland Security, and some very large banks and insurance companies.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Are you going to explain how building 7 was wired to control demolition under the noses of everyone working there? I'd really like to know how you can hide bombs that completely encircle support pillars on every floor, hide the people lugging this stuff into the building, hide the lugging of stuff OUT of the building, etc.

No matter how much you yell that the fall looks like a controlled demolition, it CAN'T be a controlled demolition if the physics of actually getting the bombs INTO the building, setup and wired to blow aren't feasible.

Thermite can be addressed to paint. IIRC the WTC complex had been having extensive overnight painting to common and structural areas.

Can't find the link to the construction.

Well that's certainly convenient. Posting a claim with no evidence then you "can't find the link".

Besides, wiring up a building to blow requires more than just painting explosive on things. You have to open up walls, remove things. Even with thermite, you'd have to do all these things.

en.wikipedia.org...

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.[85] The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.[7] Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[7][86] without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.[1][50][85][86][87][88] Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"[89]

I'm not making this up, your conspiracy is literally impossible because everyone would have noticed the building being setup for a controlled demolition. It is IMPOSSIBLE to hide.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Are you going to explain how building 7 was wired to control demolition under the noses of everyone working there? I'd really like to know how you can hide bombs that completely encircle support pillars on every floor, hide the people lugging this stuff into the building, hide the lugging of stuff OUT of the building, etc.

No matter how much you yell that the fall looks like a controlled demolition, it CAN'T be a controlled demolition if the physics of actually getting the bombs INTO the building, setup and wired to blow aren't feasible.

Thermite can be addressed to paint. IIRC the WTC complex had been having extensive overnight painting to common and structural areas.

Can't find the link to the construction.

Gee, what a surprise. You "can't find the link." Right. Because that sounds perfectly legit.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

As I said above I think the missing link he is looking for comes form Gage and Jones, I am pretty sure it was said in a National Geographic documentary.

I think it was in this one Link

You know a truthers argument is falling to bits when you have to do some of their arguing for them.

Spray-on Thermite = Magic Pixie Dust

It's only 5 minutes, so to encourage actually viewing and absorbing by some people I'll let you observe and come to your own conclusions.

I would accept that as a rational compromise. too many people lump #7 in with the two towers. talking apples and oranges a reply to: Jchristopher5

"Should we just focus on Building 7?"

Yes... if you want to waste your time and (ultimately) benefit the real planners of 9/11. I honestly believe that they are among the folks who have fed into this WTC7 hype over the years.

Building Seven was constructed with asymmetrical cantilevered trusses over an existing Con Edison transformer farm. It was also on the edge of the 'bathtub' in which adjacent WTC1 had just impacted and compacted down to ~16 floors of rubble down to the 6th subbasement level. Fire Chief Hayden had sighted the corner of Seven with a surveyor's transit after the Trade Center collapses and observed a visible bulge in its corner. Because of this, early in the afternoon FDNY ordered an evacuation of the site, angering rescue workers.

Therefore, Building Seven may be the ONLY building on 9/11 that had every right to be destabilized and collapse on its own, on 9/11.

Which makes it perfect for the real planners of 9/11 to divert attention to it as a "PSYOP limited hang out", where testimony of a real engineer as to the simple facts I mention above demolishes the whole conspiracy. And the folks who have been fixating on Seven all those years, left out in the cold.

'Proving' Seven leads to insurance fraud only. No deaths are officially attributed to Seven's collapse.

Seven had good, provable reasons to be unstable.

Perfect for a fake time-wasting storm of controversy over fires would be sufficient to bring down a steel building, when a better structural reason is obvious. Advocates of Seven's demolition have been led to deny/minimize/ignore FDNY's testimony of raging fires in WTC7. A possible motive is to poison FDNY's testimony.

Chief Hayden (deceased) fell on that day. His judgement call that Seven was unstable is must therefore be denied/minimized/ignored by advocates of Seven's demolition. Some of them even rope this poor man into the conspiracy itself.

Firefighters ultimately may supply the missing clues. This makes WTC7 perfect for the planners' efforts to poison Hayden's claim of instability on that day, and (in general) discredit FDNY and draw investigators down an ugly road. See also the suspicious Gap jeans smearfor another suspicious attempt to vilify/discredit FDNY.

See this previous post for interesting links about more interesting and productive leads.

dont take my absolute word on this but im pretty sure, you could collapse this building under its own weight by by cutting the footings at the bottom of the building while also cutting the gravity column transfer trusses and girders on the 5th or 7th floor.most of you will say the footings cant be accessed but the building was built upon a con Edison substation so its possible that you could give a sort of controlled demolition but without the preparation. it would take a couple years to clean the rubble because it wouldn't of collapsed correctly but quickly. also i would like to show you a gif of how they conduct a controlled demolition
science.howstuffworks.com...
about a third of thee way down its a cartoon illustration/ if you look the way that the building fell, not including the penthouse. if you look it fell centre out so it could be a controlled demolition

a reply to: ibelievethemsm

dont take my absolute word on this but im pretty sure, you could collapse this building under its own weight by by cutting the footings at the bottom of the building while also cutting the gravity column transfer trusses and girders on the 5th or 7th floor.most

And that is essentially exactly what happened only it was not caused by explosives. I have already given a full explanation of the collapse sequence and I really don't want to have to type it up again but you are actually pretty much correct. Its just that there were no explosives used.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

i have no doubt no explosives were used would of been heard and felt i am just guessing thermite. may i ask was it in this post or a different one you gave your explanation

a reply to: ibelievethemsm

It was in this one, there was also never any real evidence of thermite, if you have a quick look through my old threads I have authored a thread which seriously questions the research done by Jones et al.

a reply to: ibelievethemsm

It was in this one, there was also never any real evidence of thermite, if you have a quick look through my old threads I have authored a thread which seriously questions the research done by Jones et al.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

ah ok i'll take a look all engineering related conspiracy interest me

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm not making this up, your conspiracy is literally impossible because everyone would have noticed the building being setup for a controlled demolition. It is IMPOSSIBLE to hide.

OK. But following your logic, wouldn't it be just as IMPOSSIBLE to hide, if not more so, what the "19 high-jackers" supposedly pulled off?

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

It wasn't hidden. We all know that they hijacked the planes with box cutters and flew them into buildings. We know where they went for training. We pretty much know everything about what their plan was. What was hidden?

Heck even leading up to 9/11 there was intelligence chatter saying that an attack was imminent but it was ignored. There was nothing hidden about this plan. The US just wasn't interesting in looking at the time.

I'm not going to offer any theories alternative theories because no theory including the official one meets all the evidence. The problem is that official story believers always defend themselves by saying even though one or two things can be questioned doesn't mean the whole thing is a lie, and that's true. They can't then say though that if they "debunk" one or two questions from the other side that means the whole conspiracy idea is a farce either. It doesn't work that way. To more directly answer your post though, here's an excerpt:

Journalist Seymour Hersh will write in the New Yorker in late September 2001, “After more than two weeks of around-the-clock investigation into the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the American intelligence community remains confused, divided, and unsure about how the terrorists operated, how many there were, and what they might do next. It was that lack of solid information, government officials told me, that was the key factor behind the Bush Administration’s decision last week not to issue a promised white paper listing the evidence linking Osama bin Laden’s organization to the attacks” (see September 23-24, 2001). An unnamed senior official tells Hersh, “One day we’ll know, but at the moment we don’t know.” Hersh further reports, “It is widely believed that the terrorists had a support team, and the fact that the FBI has been unable to track down fellow-conspirators who were left behind in the United States is seen as further evidence of careful planning. ‘Look,’ one person familiar with the investigation said. ‘If it were as simple and straightforward as a lucky one-off oddball operation, then the seeds of confusion would not have been sown as they were.’” The hijackers left a surprisingly obvious trail of clues, even regularly paying for delivered pizzas using credit cards in their own name (see September 11-13, 2001). Hersh further reports, “Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, ‘Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the FBI to chase.’” [NEW YORKER, 10/8/2001] Many newspaper reports in late September 2001 indicate doubt over the identities of many hijackers (see September 16-23, 2001). The 9/11 Congressional Inquiry’s 2003 report will strongly suggest that the hijackers at least had numerous accomplices in the US (see July 24, 2003). But the 9/11 Commission’s 2004 report will downplay any suggestions of US accomplices and will indicate no doubts about the hijackers’ identities. [9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 231, 238-9] I'm not saying at all that this proves anything, but if the FBI itself was unwilling to initially believe how easy it was to gather information originally only to have it lead to dead ends makes me question the validity of the things they did discover. Most of the discoveries seem to good to be true and the explanations on how the post 9/11 information was discovered or recovered makes the obvious pre 9/11 intelligence harder to accept. a reply to: Krazysh0t

Explosions were heard and felt as per eyewitness reports. Many of these were after initial plane impact and could honestly have been anything really, but there are too many (more than one) account of explosions pre impact or way too far away from the impact zone to be fully explained. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that automatically means controlled demolition or even inside job. I've always wondered about the vans with the Israeli men that were apprehended. It's on both the NYPD and NYFD radio channel recordings and confirmed by news reports on the day of 9/11 that that morning after the collapses of 1 and 2, one van was pulled over by the George Washington bridge and contained "tons of explosives". This van had a mural painted on the side of the two towers and a plane flying into the side of one of them. This can't be ignored and proves both the presence of explosives AND advanced knowledge.
Another van was reported by these same credible sources as having exploded and that the fire department had the men detained. These 7 total men were later deported. Nothing in the official story even pretends to acknowledge this.


reply to: ibelievethemsm

Just to add on previously mentioned above, witnesses reported explosions BEFORE the planes hit the towers, so are these people invisible to those that investigated because I hear them clearly enough







And also, there's this guy: