9/11 Bombshell:WTC7 Security Official Details, Says bombs were going off in 7 before either tower co

What i am saying is there are characteristics of a "controlled demolition", such as squibs, numerous explosions being heard before and after the plane crash. There is also proof of Thermate being used from scientific analysis of steel spheres that were examined and showed Thermate signature.

Umm no there isnt any evidence of squibs. IF the building was intentionally demolished, the charges would have been bored into the central core supports, not on the exterior frame. Sorry, but I wont watch anything with Stevie on it....hes a moron.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

What i am saying is there are characteristics of a "controlled demolition", such as squibs, numerous explosions being heard before and after the plane crash. There is also proof of Thermate being used from scientific analysis of steel spheres that were examined and showed Thermate signature.

Umm no there isnt any evidence of squibs. IF the building was intentionally demolished, the charges would have been bored into the central core supports, not on the exterior frame. Sorry, but I wont watch anything with Stevie on it....hes a moron.

There's no evidence of squibs? Then what would you call the following:



As you can see the squibs are noticeable somewhat 50+ floors below the collapse initiation. Thats some statement you ascerted.

-

Sorry, but I wont watch anything with Stevie on it....hes a moron.

You sure you don't work for FOX?

Well if you won't watch what i have posted then you should not contribute to the thread if your not even going to rebute anything i have said by watching the clear evidence that Steven Jones has analyzed in relation to Thermate.

Ok the below picture is from the steel beams on 9/11, as you can see they are on an angle.



Now here we have Demolition experts getting ready to blow beams. Do you see any similarities. Hint: Angle.




Now let me conclude by saying NIST was asked the following question:

Did NIST look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

BeZerK

[edit on 1-7-2007 by BeZerk]

[edit on 1-7-2007 by BeZerk]

[edit on 1-7-2007 by BeZerk]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Here is where you are wrong and I know you didnt even LOOK at the paper.

Don't tell me what I've looked at. You do not understand Greenings paper, and just because it fits what you want to believe you think it proves a natural collapse. Sry bud but it doesn't. You can make any mathematical formula fit a given set a parameters, and make it look good on paper. In reality the top of the WTC 2 defied at least 3 common physical laws. THAT cannot be changed with a mathematical formula no matter how impressive it looks.

Again I'd love to hear you explain his maths, if you can't then why are you supporting it? If you can, then prove me wrong...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
IF the building was intentionally demolished, the charges would have been bored into the central core supports, not on the exterior frame.

No, thermate could have been used on the central supports and conventional explosives on the outer steel mesh. Explain why there would be no explosives needed on the outer mesh pls.

There is plenty of evidence of squibs, you just refuse to except it.

Originally posted by ANOK
No, thermate could have been used on the central supports and conventional explosives on the outer steel mesh. Explain why there would be no explosives needed on the outer mesh pls.

The part I bolded is extremely unlikely because you would be hearing those charges for blocks if they were on the outer columns. Conventional charges are very, very loud. Loud enough, in fact, to cut through steel, because it does that with immense gas pressure as it expands, which is the same kind of physics that your ears take advantage of to allow you to ear. You would be hearing very explicit pops all the way down.

There were flashes on the outer wall but they apparently didn't make much noise and were spread relatively far out so I'm thinking that it was some kind of rapid incendiary that was placed pretty sporadically. When the perimeter columns begin to lean or be forced in some way towards an angle, the bolts holding them together will have immense force applied to them at an angle they weren't designed for, and break, and the columns will simply fall away.

If you look at Ground Zero's perimeter column debris you'll see they're usually in groups of three connected by the spandrel plates and with very clean ends, just missing bolts. The bolts probably mostly failed on their own accord because of the way the exterior was falling anyway without support from the floors or core.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The part I bolded is extremely unlikely because you would be hearing those charges for blocks if they were on the outer columns.

Thanx bray. Yes that does make sense, but my point really was that explosives just on the central core, as Swampfox claims, wouldn't cause the collapse we see. Something had to have helped break up and throw the pieces of the outer mesh structure laterally.

What created the energy to do that I have no idea, as you know we can only guess what that was. But I am convinced for absolute certainty it wasn't fire, and it wasn't gravity. I haven't even ruled out a nuke of some kind yet, as we know the military was developing nukes to take down structures back in the 60's, but it's not at the top of my list...

Edit: To shorten quote.

[edit on 2/7/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by bsbray11
The part I bolded is extremely unlikely because you would be hearing those charges for blocks if they were on the outer columns.

Thanx bray. Yes that does make sense, but my point really was that explosives just on the central core, as Swampfox claims, wouldn't cause the collapse we see. Something had to have helped break up and throw the pieces of the outer mesh structure laterally.

What created the energy to do that I have no idea, as you know we can only guess what that was. But I am convinced for absolute certainty it wasn't fire, and it wasn't gravity. I haven't even ruled out a nuke of some kind yet, as we know the military was developing nukes to take down structures back in the 60's, but it's not at the top of my list...

Edit: To shorten quote.

[edit on 2/7/2007 by ANOK]

The only possible explanation in reference to ejecting steel weighing in the tons laterally is the means of explosives, what sort of explosives is beyond my explanation, but definitely some sort of explosions.

I agree ANOK, maybe thermate was placed on the core columns of the structure to melt away the main supports and explosives were attached to the perimeter, this is only my theory of course.

We can only base the evidence we have on the day of 9/11 on what we saw with our own eyes, including: Steel being thrown laterally, squibs and eye witness accounts of explosions being heard - that is fact that can not be denied.

BeZerK

[edit on 2-7-2007 by BeZerk]

Originally posted by BeZerk
If there was an evacuation at 9:44am, then that highly contradicts the "pull it" statement that Silverstein refers to.
Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."
The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."
And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."
So "PULL IT" does not refer to pulling the firefighters out of the building. Since when is "IT" referred to firefighters.

Well it took me two years to find this post again, and about as long to figure out how profound it is. There were no fire fighting operations to Pull from WTC 7 and in a nutshell, BeZerk has answered some of the questions recently raised about Larry Silverstein's pull it comment. I'm bumping this one for the benefit of mmichael and some of our other new skeptics dujour.

The interview the OP wanted to see:




[edit on 10-9-2009 by mnemeth1]