WTC 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

Originally posted by want2believe
What I can not understand is why no one on either side of congress says a word. You would think that the dems would find evidence to bring the republicans to there knees. Does this mean our intire government is involved. I just wish someone would explain this to me, because I to beleave that explosives had to be involved!

There is no spereation between parties anymore. They're both corrupt and both parties act the same anyway.

Dont let the conclusion trap you into ignoring the reasons for that conclusion. In other words, who knows WHO did it. But the fact remains that it was done. Its like saying ufo's are all alien controlled, we do not know that, only that there ARE ufo's, see what I mean?

To say 'inside job' is jumping ahead IMO, who knows exactly who was behind it or why (although I do believe that we know the answers to that as well) but the fact remains, irrefutable proof has been given here over and over again for CD of WT7.

How anyone can study this evidence and still cling to their old handed down beliefs is truly beyond me.

I can understand your beliefs (I was once one myself), but we have all presented and been presented with irrefutable evidence of CD at WT7.

I have yet to see irrefutable evidence to the contrary, and I am hoping desperately to see it, I truly would enjoy studying this from your side, but I just dont have it in front of me they way the evidence to the contrary is in front of me.

Dont ever forget that the US Gov. are liers. Always have been, always will be. That alone should give one pause when they tell you that they know what happened when others are saying 'no, thats not true, this is the facts'.

I can understand if you reviewed this evidence and said, no I dont believe it. But to stick to your old handed down beliefs when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary just escapes me.

I truelly would like to believe the official story, but I have (and so have you) been presented with massive ammounts of evidence to the contrary. Why the doggedly closed mind?

One thing is for sure, I don't need to see proof of CD to know that there were insiders involved in 9/11. Things like that there is no solid proof for, you just have to look back in history and divine the truth.

What I want to know, looking into 9/11 specifically, are the details of how they pulled it off. Even if it turns out they just duped some cave dwellers into doing their dirty work. I don't think that is the case though, for various reasons.

It is also important to keep something else in mind. Our government does not operate as a single monolithic entity. No one has to be told that the nature of red-tape itself is counterproductive. Now add into that mix deliberate deception, obfuscation, and agendas of the most powerful cabals in the world. Oh what a complicate web we weave.

Originally posted by Grock
Dont let the conclusion trap you into ignoring the reasons for that conclusion. In other words, who knows WHO did it. But the fact remains that it was done. Its like saying ufo's are all alien controlled, we do not know that, only that there ARE ufo's, see what I mean?

To say 'inside job' is jumping ahead IMO, who knows exactly who was behind it or why (although I do believe that we know the answers to that as well) but the fact remains, irrefutable proof has been given here over and over again for CD of WT7.

How anyone can study this evidence and still cling to their old handed down beliefs is truly beyond me.

I can understand your beliefs (I was once one myself), but we have all presented and been presented with irrefutable evidence of CD at WT7.

I have yet to see irrefutable evidence to the contrary, and I am hoping desperately to see it, I truly would enjoy studying this from your side, but I just dont have it in front of me they way the evidence to the contrary is in front of me.

Dont ever forget that the US Gov. are liers. Always have been, always will be. That alone should give one pause when they tell you that they know what happened when others are saying 'no, thats not true, this is the facts'.

I can understand if you reviewed this evidence and said, no I dont believe it. But to stick to your old handed down beliefs when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary just escapes me.

I truelly would like to believe the official story, but I have (and so have you) been presented with massive ammounts of evidence to the contrary. Why the doggedly closed mind?

I do not believe in UFO's controlled by aliens. I believe they are all sightings of secret military technology. That is another thread, but my point is, I see your point.

However, I do not follow, "handed down beliefs." I am not, "brainwashed" by the government or elite powers. I think for myself. I feel the President is extremely arrogant and I do NOT support him even though I consider myself a republican.

Maybe it is because I was in the military and have many friends that are as well. I KNOW 100% that Islamic terrorists are REAL. I don't need to argue this...I know. I know the lengths they go to kill. I want somebody to argue me on this! I know this is true....

At the same time, I am not closed minded like so many people on this site. I will not tell you that I know you are wrong and I am right.

What I think is that people are stretching to come up with theories. For now, I think 9/11 was due to the reasons we were told. As much as people cite eyewitness testimony, there is MORE eyewitnesses that witnessed planes flying into the buildings! They were not missiles, holograms, or whatever else people say. Thousands of people saw what happened in front of their eyes. Terrorists are real, the threat is real, the innocent people killed that I feel so bad for, were killed by terrorists.

And you know what? All three buildings "may" have been brought down by planes and controlled demolitions. That's right, American's working with terrorists may have assisted in planting explosives, and the government has not released it for reasons. If you want to argue that there were explosives, I can argue you may be right, but it wasn't our government.

Disclaimer: I do not work for a government agency to come here and spread disinfo.

reply to post by Comsence2075

If you want to argue that there were explosives, I can argue you may be right, but it wasn't our government.

What if 9/11 was a coup d’état though?

Also keep in mind what I said above. Our government does not operate as one single monolithic entity. There may have been factions both within our own government, military, and businesses that were complicit in the 9/11 attacks, without the full knowledge of our government as a whole.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by beachnut

 

They have no evidence. Where are they hiding their evidence. They say some funny stuff, and mess up the facts. That is a funny find. Good job.

Is that the best rebuttal you can come up with?

Now that's funny.

Rock on dude.

Okay, here are two, it hurts to do the rest, they get worse.
It is just fluff, they support others who have no evidence.
Not any "ample evidence" here! It is a plug for p4t, and pq911. Not a single facts, or piece of evidence, just support for people who have no evidence and no conclusions backed by facts themselves. This is it. They all say similar stuff or make false statements about 9/11, or worse just cast doubt and let other imply false conclusions.

Capt. Omar Pradhan, U.S. Air Force, is a former AWACS command pilot and Flight Instructor at the U.S. Air Force Academy. In a 2007 statement to this author, Capt. Pradhan wrote, “As a proud American, as a distinguished USAF E-3 AWACS Aircraft Commander (with 350+ hours of combat time logged over Afghanistan and Iraq), and as a former U.S. Air Force Academy Flight Instructor, I warmly endorse the professional inquiry and pursuit of comprehensive truth sought by the Pilots for 911 Truth organization and the PatriotsQuestion911 website.”

No substance.
It gets worse some one else blames the government but indirectly using the work of someone who only uses hearsay testimony to make up his implications of conspiracy.

Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, is a former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. In a 2006 statement to this author, Capt. Zeigler wrote, “I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. That was when I realized that the perpetrators had made a colossal blunder in collapsing the South Tower first, rather than the North Tower, which had been hit more directly and earlier.

This is cool, this guy skipped research and just said the tower fell in the wrong order. Oh? The first plane hit at 470 mph, the second plane hit at 590 mph. The first impact was 7 times the design impact of 180 mph. The kinetic energy was 7 times and 11 time greater. That mean the second plane severely damaged 10 core columns and the first plane only severely damaged 6 core columns. This is why the second impacted building fell first, it was the weakest and had the most weight above the impact zone. This is a lesson, take that physics course next time Gregory. They have no evidence, just false ideas on 9/11. The whole list is like this. Not a piece of evidence, just talk and support for others with no evidence.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by beachnut]

reply to post by beachnut


I think we have taken this thread far enough off topic, so I'm not even going to bother arguing the signifigance of military officers coming forward to voice their concerns about 9/11. Not that it would matter if I explained it to you anyway.

EDIT to add: If you want to argue the merits of the thread I posted a link to, I suggest you do it in that thread.



[edit on 4/12/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by beachnut

 

I think we have taken this thread far enough off topic, so I'm not even going to bother arguing the signifigance of military officers coming forward to voice their concerns about 9/11. Not that it would matter if I explained it to you anyway.

EDIT to add: If you want to argue the merits of the thread I posted a link to, I suggest you do it in that thread.

[edit on 4/12/0808 by jackinthebox]

No need to go to the other thread, all these military guys lack evidence to impact anything on 9/11. You have a good idea, they have nothing to offer on this, or other 9/11 treads that makes a difference except for support of other ideas on 9/11 not supported in fact or with evidence.

I agree, if they had something, they would be on topic, since they have no evidence to help here, it is a good idea to move on. Back to topic.

Have good weekend.

reply to post by beachnut


The topic of this thread is World Trade Center 7. Do you have anything valid to say regarding the topic or not? Or are you just here to bait and troll?

I agree, if they had something, they would be on topic, since they have no evidence to help here, it is a good idea to move on.

No, actually, that would not be the topic of this thread, since there is already another thread on that topic. Or did you miss that point too?

Originally posted by beachnut
The kinetic energy was 7 times and 11 time greater.

How can the kinetic energy be both 7 times and 11 times greater?

That mean the second plane severely damaged 10 core columns and the first plane only severely damaged 6 core columns.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by beachnut
The kinetic energy was 7 times and 11 time greater.

How can the kinetic energy be both 7 times and 11 times greater?

That mean the second plane severely damaged 10 core columns and the first plane only severely damaged 6 core columns.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Than the design looked at of an accidental impact. 11 and 175, KE 11 – 1300 lbs TNT, KE of 175 was 2093 lbs TNT. WTC design impact, 707 low on fuel lost in fog, was 187 lbs TNT, the impact at ESB was 18 lbs TNT.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by beachnut

 

The topic of this thread is World Trade Center 7. Do you have anything valid to say regarding the topic or not? Or are you just here to bait and troll?

I agree, if they had something, they would be on topic, since they have no evidence to help here, it is a good idea to move on.

No, actually, that would not be the topic of this thread, since there is already another thread on that topic. Or did you miss that point too?

I agree again, the list you posted as sources had no evidence pertinent for this thread. I mean I looked up the people on the list because you offered the list as supporting evidence for cover-up and CD of the WTC complex. I found out they had no evidence relevant to any 9/11 issues.

If you had not posted the list, I would not have know they were absent of evidence…
www.abovetopsecret.com... the statements
www.abovetopsecret.com... the request for sources
www.abovetopsecret.com... your supplied list

The list of 25 military officers only challenge 9/11 with some talk, but no evidence. You had offered the list as support for eyewitness86's allegations.
You are right, that information is not pertinent as evidential support for CD or cover-up actives mentioned.

The video that will finally put to rest the 9-11 conspiracy theories. Al-Queda we did it..... Watch the video.....

www.theonion.com...

On a more serious note I think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, but like every other conspiracy theory, we'll never find out the real truth.

Originally posted by IvanZana
Rubble pile is too small for a catastrophic collapse.

The rubble pile is a true sign of a controlled collapse or demolition.

Thanks for the dime.

the 2 cent version. The rubble pile looks way too high for a CD. It looks like a collapsed building. The problem with comparing.

In a real CD the stuff in the building is taken out, so yes the pile could be smaller in a CD there is less stuff. Your statement does not make sense, do you mean the pile is too small and would be smaller if the stuff was not in the building. Because if WTC7 was a CD, since the stuff was still in the building the pile should look higher, and the pile is higher. So was WTC7 higher because it had stuff in it, but too low to be a structural collapse?

In a real CD the main energy source is, gravity. When WTC7 collapsed due to damage in fires burning all day out of control with no firefighting, the main force in the collapse was the exact same as CD, gravity. Thus the piles should be how gravity makes it, therefore both are CD and a building falling due to structural failure from fire are the same if the same stuff was in the buildings.

The rubble pile on 9/11 of WTC7 is a sign of collapse due to fire. When you find out there are no sounds of RDX blasting away it makes it clear, no CD in 7. I have yet to see a building that burns for as long as WTC7 survive. Have you? I know of tow sky scrapers that were destroyed by fire, and those fires were fought.

Originally posted by beachnut

Originally posted by IvanZana
Rubble pile is too small for a catastrophic collapse.

The rubble pile is a true sign of a controlled collapse or demolition.

Thanks for the dime.

the 2 cent version. The rubble pile looks way too high for a CD. It looks like a collapsed building.

LOL.. here we go... Another basement engineer.........

47 stories got pulled to a height of 1.5 - 2 stories. Controlled demolition companies are in business to try to achieve a small rubble pile such as seen in the WTC 7 site.


Oh sigh.... You debunkers have run out of time not only that you are making yourselves look like fools trying to fabricate fantastic theories to obsefucate and derail people from what they already KNOW.

World Trade Center 7 was a controlled demoltion.

If the BBC reports of WTC 7s collapse 23 minutes before it happened doesn't tell you someone knew and that it wasn't an accident, then you're simply not on this planet.

Major problems:

* WTC 7 collapse wasn't an accident

* Pentagon aircraft was both extremely strong and extremely fragile at the same time

* Flight 93 was reported as landing at Cleveland. If that wasn't weird enough, people were then asked to walk away from the airport. People could NOT return to their cars; they had to get taxis etc.. There is a video on YouTube about it, filmed at the time. Why go to all that trouble at the one airport it was alleged Flight 93 landed at, if Flight 93 didn't land there?

The only part that couldn't be so easily fabricated was the impacts with WTC1 and 2. Too many people to see it happen, but the collapses could have been staged in advance.

reply to post by beachnut

You had offered the list as support for eyewitness86's allegations.

No I offered the thread to answer the question of another member. It is in that other thread that the merits of that evidence must be discussed.

It is blatantly clear at this point that you have nothing pertinent to add to this discussion, and are deliberately attempting to derail it. You are revealed for what you are, a simple troll.

reply to post by kindred


I love the Onion! Thanks for posting.

Does this count as line 2?

reply to post by beachnut

In a real CD the main energy source is, gravity. When WTC7 collapsed due to damage in fires burning all day out of control with no firefighting, the main force in the collapse was the exact same as CD, gravity.

You are ignoring the fact that in a CD, the key support structures are neutralized in rapid, orderly sucession to effectively utilize gravity.

What we should have seen, if WTC7 was not an exmaple of CD, is a series of partial collapses as each primary support failed.

There was not one single primary support for the entire structure that finally burned away causing global failure.

My supermarket burned down, and this is what it looked like...

Poughkeepsie Journal

www.1strespondernews.com...

Just to add, they're having a hell of a time actually taking it down now.

EDIT: Video would not link for some reason, but should be available in the first article. More pics in second link.

[edit on 4/12/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
If the BBC reports of WTC 7s collapse 23 minutes before it happened doesn't tell you someone knew and that it wasn't an accident, then you're simply not on this planet.

Major problems:

* Flight 93 was reported as landing at Cleveland. If that wasn't weird enough, people were then asked to walk away from the airport. People could NOT return to their cars; they had to get taxis etc.. There is a video on YouTube about it, filmed at the time. Why go to all that trouble at the one airport it was alleged Flight 93 landed at, if Flight 93 didn't land there?

So where are all the people that were suppose to be on that plane that landed at Cleveland? How could none of them come forward knowing the story was fake? I remember watching a video on Youtube that says they were all taken to a NASA warehouse, but you just stated they had to take cabs? Which one is it?

Also, can somebody provide the information for what time the news people stated that WTC-7 had collapsed?

I want to know what time they reported this in relation to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. I found a video showing the news report, but I want to see how much time it was from the other collapses. How do we know they had not received information that the firefighters and other officials were worried about WTC-7 collapsing, and they just made a mistake trying to explain what took place with WTC 1 or 2? The media makes mistakes all the time on live broadcasts and there was an insane amount of chaos and confusion on 9/11.