Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

Originally posted by snoopy
Apparently I don't. Please tell me what you mean by "official story". Is it the NIST report? The 9/11 commission report? Which is it?

snoopy, you're absolutely not fooling anyone.

Originally posted by snoopy
And your proof is looking at a video of a CD? Yet you have no expertise what so ever? I think I am gonna go with the demolition experts instead of you. Somehow I think the experts who make demolitions for a living would know more than you do. Or do you disagree with that?

When it's so damn obvious, there is no need for anything other then actually seeing the building coming down it self...

I could however show you some articles on independent experts who explains how the official story is inconsistent with the laws of physics but that's not something you should have to read, it's something you should know...

Originally posted by snoopy
Oh so now you are calling me a liar? Please quote the part where I am lying. That's quite an accusation there. Yes I know no cables were used. But people on this thread are claiming that Larry or someone said to "pull it" and that it was a reference to demolishing the building.

Huh? I never called you a liar and I didn't accuse you of anything. I said that it only shows how much you didn't research into the WTC7 and it's only my personal opinion.

I'm not even talking about the pull it comment, perhaps it's you who should read posts more carefully.

Originally posted by snoopy
Show me where I called other people idiots. And as for research again, Am I the one claiming they said to pull it to demolish the building when as you pointed out there are no cables pulling the building? Might wanna re-think about research.

It's on this thread somewhere, I remember you said that you will rather listen to some experts instead of some idiots on the internet. Something of that sort. Then later on you accused Ultima of not being able to read and such.

Again, I never even spoke of the pull it comment, you got my posts confused with someone else, again you must read the posts more carefully.

Never did I once stated that the pull it comment was an order to demolish the building. Now who's accusing who? heh....

Originally posted by snoopy
Because you claim I didn't research because I asked where the cables were. It was in jest because of the implications being made about the term pull it which means using cables. By now understanding the conversation you were replying to, you put your foot in your mouth. An d you put your foot in your mouth again by trying to turn the expression around incorrectly.

Huh, I did no such thing...

I told you that because you didn't even know that no cables were used and that there was no photo's of cables being used and no videos of cables being used you didn't do much research to be asking for such a request...

Again, you put your own foot in your own mouth by trying to accuse me of putting my foot in my own mouth with something I did not even say.... this is getting very silly and quite comical.

Originally posted by snoopy
So you don't have any expertise? And then are you claiming that the demolition experts are all in denial? how can it be that people who do this for a living don't see any signs of a controlled demolition when it's so obvious to you? What do you know that the experts don't?

Maybe you are unaware of the concept in this reality of propaganda...

The experts who propose these claims are people who are paid to do so....

Maybe you didn't know but there once were scientists who were paid to tell the populations that tobacco is not bad for your health. Just because the experts being paid to say such lies did not magically made the tobacco not dangerous for peoples healths.

You have to look at the experts opinions who comes from an independent source and not associated with the cover up operations. Otherwise your biased experts opinions are nothing else then a paid opinion.

Originally posted by snoopy
not a single one.

Show me, this will be funny cause I know it will come from places like debunking911.com and yet you would still claim it's not coming from the government.

Originally posted by snoopy
If the sides stay perfectly vertical, then it didn't telescope. And have you seen all the damage that the collapse did to the surrounding areas?

First of all, that's the term for a building falling on it's own footprints, telescoping. Doesn't mean that it's exactly like a telescope it's a figure of speech... but I see you are desperate to cling onto any twisting of words.

Yes the surrounding areas were damaged and some buildings were much worst then the WTC7 and yet it didn't even collapse, funny huh???

Originally posted by snoopy
So you're saying that the demolition experts are all blind then? And no one claimed it collapsed from fire, that was just one of the factors.

I'm saying that the paid biased experts are not blind but paid.

The independent experts says otherwise from the articles and videos I've seen so far...

Originally posted by snoopy
Yes it is like the twilight zone because you seem to think that all the experts don't know what they are talking about and that you, someone with no education on the subject does.

Again, you are just going in circles...

I have read many articles from experts who says that it's just physically impossible for the buildings to collapse the way they did and funny enough, I already thought that before I read the articles because it's so freaking in your face smack obvious it's not even funny and this is why it's a freaking twilight zone to even be saying this right now as we speak.

Originally posted by snoopy
You seem to think that because two things look similar to you that they must be. A long time ago people saw ships disappear over the horizon and concluded the earth was flat because thy could see it right in front of their eyes. But scientists showed them that it only *looked* that way to them and that the world was really flat.

Your argument here is completely irrelevant to the building being demolished.

It's not only similar, it's IDENTICAL and so is the time the building took to fall onto it's own footprints against the laws of physics if no demolitions are used...

Originally posted by snoopy
you're essentially trying to tell me the world is flat in context of WTC 7. Again, I apologize, but I am going to go with the experts who have years of training and studying doing this stuff over someone who's only expertise in demolition is looking at a clip of video.

What in the... are you talking about? I never said the world is flat, holy......

And again you assume that no experts said that the WTC7 was demolished but that's not true. You think this because all your sources comes from official reports and the government.....

I have read many articles from REAL EXPERTS who are unbiased and not paid and say what they say BECAUSE THEY CARE FOR OUR WORLD and because they feel that the world has a right to know what really happened.

snoopy, this is the last post you get from me, I'm through talking to you, there is absolutely no point in talking to you, all you do is TRY to twist words around for whatever purpose you serve and I won't stand for that anymore.

Originally posted by snoopy
[
quote]Originally posted by selfless

The pull it comment is not even an issue wetter he meant the building or whatever....

Just look at the darn building being demolished....... there's your damn proof....

You even see the explosion smoke flow coming from the bottom of the building right before it's demolished just like a controlled demolition....


First the bombs goes boom and then the building falls into it's own footprints....

Originally posted by snoopy
This is just too absurd to even acknowledge. Ultima at least brings some facts to the table, he doesn't pass off uneducated (in terms of the topic) opinions and try to use opinion to dismiss facts. I am hitting ignore. not because you're a bad person, but because it's simply going to waste space and time in the thread if I keep responding to you. So if I don't respond, it's not because I am actively ignoring you, it's because i won't see your posts.

You're right, your official story propaganda is too absurd to acknowledge. You are right, you are constantly dismissing facts by blindly following the cover ops stories and lies.

What you failed to understand is that I was never talking about the pull it comment before you quoted me. Just because you were undergoing a discussing with someone else about the pull it comment does not mean that I was referring to it.... So you had absolutely no reasons to quote me and talk about the pull it comment like I was saying that it was a demolition order. Because I NEVER SAID THAT. I simply pointed out your lack of research due to your request for a photo or video of the building being pulled with cables because there is no such thing out there... it had nothing to do with the Larry quote.

Talk about ''uneducated (in terms of the topic) opinions and try to use opinion to dismiss facts.'' Like when you were saying lies about the WTC7 with out even knowing that there was no cables used to bring down the buildings... uneducated guess is completely right.

So what exactly is your point? exactly nothing.

Originally posted by snoopy
You HAVE to be kidding me. OK, I am not going to even bother replying to you any more.

*snip*

9/11 Forums Under Close Scrutiny - Why




[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

[edit on 6/17/07 by niteboy82]

@ultima: which IC classes were these, cuz maybe i just didnt pay close enough attention in mine but it was never indicated to us we could order the destruction of buildings on our own...but what WAS stressed was to document everything as we did it...and id thnk that ordering the destruction of a building would be written down somewhere. has anyone found anything anywhere that indicated the IC ordered the destruction of 7 or are we basing this ALL off the "pull it" comment? just wondering

so either the IC did it legitimatly or he was "in on it". if it was legit, it wouldnt be a secret and we wouldnt be having this conversation.

@anyone else: does ANYONE really think that if it wasnt safe for firemen that they'd even FIND a demo crew crazy enough to go in and plant explosives? yeah theres my idea of fun, run into a damaged building thats still on fire and not safe enough for the firefighters while humping in crates of munitions. id rather urinate on an electric fense.

ok, theres a cloud of dust/smoke prior to the initation of the collapse. is it possible that it came from things already falling inside the structure or does it HAVE to be from an explosive charge? if it was explosives was it one of those new super secret explosives that dont make any noise? cuz an explosion big enough to make a big cloud of dust/smoke should make enough noise to be pretty clear cut what it was....all these reports of "small 'explosions"' throughout the day dont make any sense either really. blow out supports through the course of the day and it still comes down all at once nice and neatly? probably not.
also, where were the subsequent explosions? or did that single puff of smoke/dust account for the only one?

yeah, there are a LOT of questions not explained by the official story, but lord there are just as many or more not explained by a controlled demo theory.

i mean im not asking anyone to take my word for it, cuz ya know, even though ive set off enough heavy demo to be called an expert by the army, im just a govt shill and all...so i would encourage most of you to put in even a fraction of the research into real demolitions that do into all these grainey internet videos then apply what ya'll learn to the questions that still exist.

*snip*

Once again, 9/11 Forum Under Close Scrutiny - Why


[edit on 6/17/07 by niteboy82]

Originally posted by Damocles
@anyone else: does ANYONE really think that if it wasnt safe for firemen that they'd even FIND a demo crew crazy enough to go in and plant explosives? yeah theres my idea of fun, run into a damaged building thats still on fire and not safe enough for the firefighters while humping in crates of munitions. id rather urinate on an electric fense.

As far as I'm concerned, I never said that they put the explosives on the day of 911 while the building was on fire...

It's most likely that the explosives were placed before that day.

A building doesn't collapse from a fire like that after a few hours and then fall onto it's own footprints demolition style... that's not consistent with the laws of physics.

PS: I'm sorry for loosing my cool over snoopy, It was late and I didn't sleep .

It's possible that no controlled demolitions were used on WTC7 but I really don't think it's possible that the building collapsed from a natural failure...

Whatever was used to bring down WTC7, it was not gravity alone, that's for sure.


[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Damocles

yeah, there are a LOT of questions not explained by the official story, but lord there are just as many or more not explained by a controlled demo theory.

I think the laws of physics over rules all the evidence presented and all the testimonies being said.

Whatever happened, The laws of physics dictates that it was not consistent with the official story and this means the official story is not true. I'm sure the laws of physics didn't take a vacation on 911.

Originally posted by selfless
The experts who propose these claims are people who are paid to do so....

Maybe you didn't know but there once were scientists who were paid to tell the populations that tobacco is not bad for your health. Just because the experts being paid to say such lies did not magically made the tobacco not dangerous for peoples healths.

You have to look at the experts opinions who comes from an independent source and not associated with the cover up operations. Otherwise your biased experts opinions are nothing else then a paid opinion.

ya know, personally, im just a little offended by that, i worked my ass off for years training to, and actually blowing things up and i do NOT see evidence of a CD at least with conventional explosives and i can GUARANTEE that i am in no way compensated for my opinions or statements in regards to the events of 911. i am also not stupid, biased (other than standing by my opinions, which ARE subject to change in the event i am presented with new evidence or proof that is contrary to what i know), ignorant or a sheeple. im not a disinfo agent nor am i a shill.

i will freely admit (and have done so many times matter of fact) that my real expertise is NOT in bringing buildings down specifically (there are other uses for explosives) but i do have enough knowledge of it to have an informed opinion, but more importantly, i KNOW explosives regardless of the application of them.

everyone talks about how this or that violates this or that law of physics but completely ignore the laws of physics when it comes to how explosives work and how they would have to work in order to fit the CD theories. i find that mildly amusing but after a while it gets tedious.

i can respect having a strong passionate opinion on something but to label any of us who disagree with you is just wrong. ill admit that the "official story believers" do it a lot, and ive done it in the past but that doesnt make me right to do so either.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Damocles

ya know, personally, im just a little offended by that,

I'm sorry, I didn't mean you.

Originally posted by Damocles
everyone talks about how this or that violates this or that law of physics but completely ignore the laws of physics when it comes to how explosives work and how they would have to work in order to fit the CD theories. i find that mildly amusing but after a while it gets tedious.

I showed a video that shows the WTC7 and another building being demolished with explosives and the results are identical. That can't be denied but it can be ignored...

Originally posted by Damocles
i can respect having a strong passionate opinion on something but to label any of us who disagree with you is just wrong. ill admit that the "official story believers" do it a lot, and ive done it in the past but that doesnt make me right to do so either.

I was mostly talking about the official reports, sorry I got carried away from being extremely tired.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

lol no problem, i just get tired of being lumped in with various groups by various people and you were a conveinient target to make a point. so if i sounded harsh i also apologize.

people just dont seem to "get" or just dont want to "get" where im coming from.

i DO believe there are a lot of unanswered questions about 911 and i want to know the truth as much as anyone does, but i dont see a CD involved and i can articulate (and have) why i feel that way. so my only goal is to clear up what i feel are misconceptions so that we dont waste time by screwing around with theories that dont hold water and can focus on the tougher questions.

in all things, when you weed out the crap you get to the core of the issue and thats where the answers are IMHO.

Damocles,

Do you think the way the buildings fell that it's consistent with what would naturally happen if the buildings were faced with that situation?

Untampered?

I won't think badly of you if you think it would he he.

I personally think that it's impossible for the buildings to fall onto their own foot prints and react the way they did.

I don't have anything against you personally but snoopy on the other hand, I didn't appreciate his comment once about being only here just to have a good laugh.


[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by Damocles
everyone talks about how this or that violates this or that law of physics but completely ignore the laws of physics when it comes to how explosives work and how they would have to work in order to fit the CD theories. i find that mildly amusing but after a while it gets tedious.

I showed a video that shows the WTC7 and another building being demolished with explosives and the results are identical. That can't be denied but it can be ignored...

but the ONLY thing that 7 has with any ohter CD ive ever seen is the fact it LOOKS like a CD. thats it. it takes more than one explosive (unless you use a large truck bomb and that wont exactly be a CONTROLLED demo) to bring down a building.

even using small charges theres going to be noise from them. you can hear 1lb of explosive going off from quite a distance be it in a city, the woods, the desert or whereever...there are no audio cues. also to get it to drop relatively neatly you stagger the charges, drop the center then out from away from the center, but given that IF it was a cd they didnt want it to look like a cd so much they likely wouldnt have done it that way, but you'd still have a string of charges going off on more than just one floor and as so you'd have either heard a series of small charges just prior to the collapse or ONE big one as all charges were set off at once.

guess what im saying is that if it WAS a cd, they used something other than HE. so that means something that can blow wihtout sound or something like thermate/mite which means taht "they" found a way to make it cut horizontally, which is something no one else has been able to reproduce, at least on the scale required to cuz heavy support beams/columns.

so, in the end the ONLY evidence that indicates a CD is the fact that it fell straight down...thats it.

and yeah i know "no other steel building..blah blah blah" but unless someone can explain how the laws of physics were suspended to let explosives go off without any indicators, then im afraid all we're left with is a building falling down.

personally i havnt seen any good photos of the buildings damaged side to have an opinion of why it fell at all.

Originally posted by selfless
Damocles,

Do you think the way the buildings fell that it's consistent with what would naturally happen if the buildings were faced with that situation?

Untampered?

LOL well i have to say that if buildings started falling down untampered, then id want to avoid going into any buildings built by that company.

we all know buildings dont just fall down of their own accord if they are built by anyone that knows more than the average 2 year old.

but, does that mean ill jump to the conclusion that the ONLY reason it COULD come down is with explosives? no.

ill disagree with anyone from EITHER side of the debate that says we have enough information on the extent of the damage to 7 to KNOW why it came down. there isnt enough to say "it was inevitable" nor is there enough to say "it was barely scratched". unless i missed some great photos of the damaged side, i just personaly dont have enough data to know.

Well some people reported hearing explosives before the WTC7 came down.

But I have not seen any videos with audio of the WTC7 coming down...

Is it possible that the explosives were in the sub basements?

Maybe a technology not yet revealed to the public was used?

All I know is that a building don't collapse from a fire like that... Did you see the pictures of other buildings around the WTC7? They were in worst conditions and they didn't fall. One of the building was like cut in half but it didn't even collapse.

A building that collapse from structural failure alone would not crumble onto it's own infrastructure... it's just not physically possible.

So what did they use, any theories?

Originally posted by Damocles

ill disagree with anyone from EITHER side of the debate that says we have enough information on the extent of the damage to 7 to KNOW why it came down. there isnt enough to say "it was inevitable" nor is there enough to say "it was barely scratched". unless i missed some great photos of the damaged side, i just personaly dont have enough data to know.

Well one thing is for sure, other buildings around the area with much worst damage then the WTC7 didn't collapse.

Here's some examples.


upload.wikimedia.org...







[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

without seeing architectural drawings of the building i cant even begin to theorize how id personally do it if i had to bring it down, but ive yet to find a material or munitino anywhere that would do it without it being obvious it was intentional.

also to consider. in the case of the towers, they were the ONLY two buildings built the way they were, so even comparing them to other steel buildings isnt accurate. there are buildnigs that are single story (factories etc) that use the same type of trusses to hold up the roof that held up the floors of the wtc towers and those buildigns in bad enough fires have the ceiilngs collapse if im not mistaken (which i could be, thats more a firefighter question than a demo guy question)

but ive read that wtc7 had had internal work done to accomadte some of the firms that were in there...did any of this internal work somehow change the way the loads were distributed in such a way that damage to any of the supports below it could compromise the buildings integrity should something like having tons of debris hit it happen? im not sure anyone can answer that without the blueprints which are convieniently locked away from us.

so, we're back to we dont know what we dont know, and to simply fill in the blanks with "explosives" is to me, jumping the gun.

and while people may have heard "explosions" throughout the day, that doesnt mean that it was high explosives, explosions are fairly common in fires and given that after the 2nd plane hit it was pretty obvious we were being attacked, its not hard to see why people would hear a loud noise and jump to "explosives" or "bombs".

but another point to ponder is if there WERE explosions throughout the day, why didnt parts of the building collapse sooner? if youre blasting something in an effort to bring the building down, chances are wahtever youre blasting is part of the load bearing structure....seems SOME part of the building would have fallen before the rest of it then doesnt it?

edit to add: in regards to the photos, ok, other buildings were damaged, but unless we KNOW how much damage 7 had taken, isnt it unfair to say they were damaged worse? even if they were damaged worse, what about the building design? what coudl be damaging to one building may be fatal to another thats built differently. just saying we dont know what we dont know


[edit on 17-6-2007 by Damocles]

Originally posted by Damocles
also to consider. in the case of the towers, they were the ONLY two buildings built the way they were, so even comparing them to other steel buildings isnt accurate.

But just because a building is unique in design, doesn't mean it's gonna pancake onto it's own footprint from structural failure.

Originally posted by Damocles
so, we're back to we dont know what we dont know, and to simply fill in the blanks with "explosives" is to me, jumping the gun.

Well it's the most consistent theory with the events that took place...

Perhaps it's something else but I don't think it was unassisted.

Originally posted by Damocles
but another point to ponder is if there WERE explosions throughout the day, why didnt parts of the building collapse sooner? if youre blasting something in an effort to bring the building down, chances are wahtever youre blasting is part of the load bearing structure....seems SOME part of the building would have fallen before the rest of it then doesnt it?

In my opinion, if there were bombs they went off exactly before the buildings came down and not before that.

Originally posted by Damocles
edit to add: in regards to the photos, ok, other buildings were damaged, but unless we KNOW how much damage 7 had taken, isnt it unfair to say they were damaged worse? even if they were damaged worse, what about the building design? what coudl be damaging to one building may be fatal to another thats built differently. just saying we dont know what we dont know

No it's not unfair to state that a building that's been literally cut in half was damaged worst then the WTC7, that's a fact. And it didn't collapse either.

Maybe they are designed differently but it's highly convenient that the one building that held valuable information that could have put responsible people behind this incident in serious trouble, is the building that collapsed from a fire... ( I really don't buy it that it came down from a fire)...

Originally posted by selfless

No it's not unfair to state that a building that's been literally cut in half was damaged worst then the WTC7, that's a fact. And it didn't collapse either.

Maybe they are designed differently but it's highly convenient that the one building that held valuable information that could have put responsible people behind this incident in serious trouble, is the building that collapsed from a fire... ( I really don't buy it that it came down from a fire)...

fair enough, my point was simply that we dont KNOW the extent of the damage to 7 so its hard to make an accurate comparison. also that the design of the building as well as the modifications to 7 being uknown make it difficult to determin what SHOULD have happened. for all we know the damage to 7 was deep enough that it could have come down in a few hours without a fire in it. dunno.

but, i cant disagree with you on how convienient 7 collapsing was for a number of people and companies, and honestly the reason i keep an open mind about 7. but just because im open minded doesnt mean im going to set aside what i know about demo and jump on the band wagon figurativly speaking.

Originally posted by Damocles
@ultima: which IC classes were these, cuz maybe i just didnt pay close enough attention in mine but it was never indicated to us we could order the destruction of buildings on our own...but what WAS stressed was to document everything as we did it...and id thnk that ordering the destruction of a building would be written down somewhere. has anyone found anything anywhere that indicated the IC ordered the destruction of 7 or are we basing this ALL off the "pull it" comment? just wondering

Well i guess you did not read the firechiefs timeline where it states they were worried about the building causing damage to other buildings and spreading fires.

I guess you saw the video of the hard hat workers who are comming out of the evacuated area ( the one they evacuated the firemen back beyond a safety zone) stating the buildingis comming down.

I guess you also missed the reports from police and first responders stating they heard the countdown for building 7 over their radios.

I also assume you know about chemical and mechanical beam cutters in your experience ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i guess you did not read the firechiefs timeline where it states they were worried about the building causing damage to other buildings and spreading fires.

I guess you saw the video of the hard hat workers who are comming out of the evacuated area ( the one they evacuated the firemen back beyond a safety zone) stating the buildingis comming down.

I guess you also missed the reports from police and first responders stating they heard the countdown for building 7 over their radios.

I also assume you know about chemical and mechanical beam cutters in your experience ?

yes, i did
yes
you guess incorrectly
you can assume what you'd like but to answer you im aware of the existance but wont claim a particular expertise in these devices as we tended to do things more directly, with explosives.

but none of this answers the points i raise.

did your IC training indicate to you that should you find yourself in charge of a scene you could order the destruction of a building? because mine never did, though ill admit if i ever found myself in charge of a scene it meant a lot of people were already dead, so maybe i didnt get the advance class or something.

is there anywhere documented where the IC on 911 DID order the destruction of wtc7? if he did, why does anyone anywhere debate what happened to wtc7?

if it is not documented, and if you are not implying he was "in on it", then why has he never spoken up about it saying that he did it and it just wasnt documented?

becuase if he did order it done under his own authority it wouldnt be a secret.

so either he ordered it and just hasnt felt the need to share that little tidbit with anyone, or he ordered it and keeps quiet cuz he's "in on it", or he didnt order it but someone else did, OR...the buildign fell as a result of damage/fire sustained secondary to the collapse of the wtc tower.

thats it, those are the only real choices

you seem pretty certain that the IC ordered the building to be "pulled" and im just curious as to what brings you to this conclusion. is there some bit of data that i (and apparently many others) have overlooked in regards to this that CLEARLY and without question indicates the IC ordered it, or are you drawing your own conclusion based on your research?

also, are you saying flat out that it was the guys in the hardhats that were leaving the building who were the ones to actually set it into motion using these chemical and mechanical cutters? if so again id like to ask if thats based on some documented data or is it another conclusion you came to on your own?

edit to add: "i did" after first yes as i realized that my simple "yes" answer could ahve been misconstrued. sorry for the confusion

[edit on 17-6-2007 by Damocles]