Wow, cant believe what in hearing

It seems the controlled demolition issue is the #1 issue within 911.

Had our leaders said the following they wouldnt have had all these questions and conspiracies floating around.


"We had to collapse the buildings to prevent them from toppling over a wide area thus destroying more property and possibly killing more people. All skyscrapers were retrofitted with controlled demolition charges incase of natural or unatural disasters in the 1980s."

reply to post by Liamoville


Whether WTC7 was going to fall anyway is beside the point. No one with any sense can believe that a building damaged by fire and impacts from debris from the collapsing North Tower would suddenly and as one event and unit fall symmetrically, so the fact that some people at the scene might have thought it might collapse is beside the point. The issue is whether WTC7 was helped to fall by blowing it up so that it would not collapse when people were nearby. Larry Silverstein's "pull it" remark is clear evidence that this was done, even though he now denies that meaning. You don't use the improper noun "it" to refer to human beings either fighting fires in WYC& (there were none, according to NIST) and in the surrounding streets.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Full story people....wake up!

Thing is though, in a normal CD, the point is to bring the building down as safely as possible. When that rule goes out the window, what possibilities does that open up? You don't need to be as tidy about it.

reply to post by jprophet420


"As I've pointed out many times before, that line of logic is 100% unfounded. The Manhattan project consisted of an entire town of people where the conspiracy didn't leak."

REALLY?.....the manhatten project secrets were leaked from its inception....
look up George Koval.

"Dr. Koval was a mole groomed in the Soviet Union by the feared G.R.U., the military intelligence agency. Moreover, he gained wide access to America’s atomic plants, a feat unknown for any other Soviet spy. Nuclear experts say the secrets of bomb manufacturing can be more important than those of design.

Los Alamos devised the bomb, while its parts and fuel were made at secret plants in such places as Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Dayton, Ohio — sites Dr. Koval not only penetrated, but also assessed as an Army sergeant with wide responsibilities and authority.

“He had access to everything,” said Dr. Kramish, who worked with Dr. Koval at Oak Ridge"

www.nytimes.com.../mw&oref=slogin


Oh and i remember that before we used to blow things up with explosives ,people used to burn them down in a controlled way ...eg chimmneys...see "Fred dibner" ,many buildings burnt in this way fell mainly within there own footprint ,in a controlled manner ,from a simple hot fire in the building,the diesel fuel within 7 would help there I think.


[edit on 7-7-2008 by gambon]

This isn't the first. We've had a few shows and things of similar orientation in britian.

What I don't get it that this particular building was 'less than 2 blocks away'?
2 blocks?
That's still a long way from the twin towers. Maybe debris from one of the towers as it collapsed flew into the main loadbearing structure of wtc7? is so there'd be debris leading upto it as well.
From the video it looks as though the building drops in on itelf . I also know that a building CAN be demolished by fire , Look at a guy called FRED DIBNAH, he used to bring old chimneys down with fire, but it took hours and he did it with wood.
Todays equipment can use cutting tools and magnesium of sorts to cut through loadbearing structures then let the collapse of the twin towers and the ground temors shake WTC 7 down in on itself , that could explain why it was so quiet, all the work had already been done and waiting for the attack.
That would implicate that the attack was premeditated and would have to had gone through to the end result of total collapse, Think about it what would they have achieved?
A great reason to go to war and the destruction of another building containing secrets they dont want you to find out about.
You can make your own mind up.

There was a story last week in the BBC online page saying "Its official, building 7 fell due to fires only"

What a load of rubbish. It was quite obvious that it fell due to CD.

I will try to find the link.

I read the article last week and it made me just laugh my AS# off, i mean come on, to collapse like that due to fire!

Also it stated that this was the findings of an official reporting / investigating group and that they determind after extensive analysis of the event that fire was the cause 100% and not a CD. Oh and they also went on to mention that if thsi was so the case it would have been the first of its kind, to show controlled demolition characteristics with only a fire to blame. So then why did all the metal and rubble get destroyed and not tested? hmmm i think we can work that one out dont you?

They think we are brainless!

Peace.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by 1234567]

i found the bbc news article.....

prepare for a laugh.

BBC NEWS LINK

Peace.

Dont you ever feel like the medai is saying...


"BELIEVE what we are saying!"

"BELIEVE"

"BELIEVE"

"We are telling the truth!"

Oh and if you disagree we will lock you up.

But we live in a free soceity!

Yes its free, as long as you do what we tell you to do.

hmmm sounds like NAZI Germany to me! And this is GLOBAL people, not just the US.

Peace.

reply to post by mr-lizard


The.911.Chronicles.Part.One.-.Truth.Rising.(2008)

its in there for sure.. download anywhere for free

Z

It's funny how we argue back and forth about how the building went down. I'm interested how WTC7 goes down and buildings across the street from the towers didn't tumble. Building 7 , from the images I've seen was a good walk from the towers. And buildings that you could reach and touch hanging out of the windows did sustain any damage. Co-inky-dink, I think not!

reply to post by Chriswok


Saw the program too, you mean at the end regarding the statements done by this person who was advisor to the US government? I actually liked it when he said that the US government is not capable of pulling such a (horrible!) stunt. Who knows....

Anyway, as to the OP the program seemed quite interesting indeed yet it concluded that building 7 did collapse on its own due to the metal beams collapsing at their meeting points. They even showed such a beam's end.

What I am wondering about is whether those trillions that were "missing" in the months prior to 9/11 have been found. The only reason I can think of for it to be a inside job is money. Yes I know people say that it was needed to start the "war on terror" and indeed a lot of US contractors have earned a lot of money there which I assume must be the US tax payers' money. But still.

Does anyone else think the guy who was rescued in tower 7 seemed to change his story towards the end of the documentary, i think somewhere along the lines someone may have got to him. Also the call to his wife telling her hes dead was pretty harsh. Also his denial of saying he stepped over bodies in an interview which later turned out to be untrue didnt bear well for him when they had proof of what he was saying. My 2 cents is that i think there was no way that the building could collapse due to fire and must be some form of controlled explosion (as confirmed by the dutch guy). And that no one is safe in this world as long as oil is what drives us.

As to this issue concerning bldg 7 and not hearing any explosions, there are many that feel that this building (and perhaps others on the campus) were pre-designed with demolition capabilities because of the sensitive nature of their operations.

If this and other buildings were pre-designed and wired with the potential to easily install and detonate thermite charges to sever critical beams, this would also explain some of the findings related to the metals in this news clip (and many other conspiracy documentaries). No major explosions necessary with this technology! BTW, it seems like I remember hearing about explosions earlier in the day - which could have weakened critical concrete supports.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by whatsup]

[edit on 7-7-2008 by whatsup]

[edit on 7-7-2008 by whatsup]

IMO it was not as bad as i thought it would be, was fairly balanced, they tried to give the "debunker's" the last word a bit to much and made Alex Jones look a bit crazy (although he brings that on himself), other than that was ok, no new information added, still the same tired old theories from both sides other than BBC explaining they're reporting of bldg 7 collapsing early was Reuters fault and not theirs. One thing that was confusing when they showed the south side of 7 you see alot of smoke, at first the narrator was saying this shows there was more damage but then they said well maybe the smoke was not all from 7, then they showed a shot where the wind had blown the smoke slightly off of the south face and you could see no damage, need to find this footage again.

reply to post by RE2505


The first time someone set a bomb off in the towers(when was that, the 80s? early 90s?) could of provided a nice little practise run.

In fact, that may have been THE practise run.

and how many people are in these buildings at night or the wee hours of the morning? not many I suspect. I work in a large government building and it is a ghosttown at 5pm.

Is there a basement? Who sees the basement? put in your own people as maintenance and you have that covered.

i don't see it being hard at all. Most people are in a hurry, cursing someone, grabbing their lite soy double mocha triple grande latte and rushing to their email or texting a coworker or relative. Do you think people are really paying attention?

Not only that but isn't building seven the one BBC announced (OOPS!) as having collapsed 20 minutes too early.

reply to post by fastfingersfunk


I'd like to see the full version of that newscast. When exactly did the broadcast cut to the reporter? I'd like to see the footage because of the possibility of a time delay on sound.

From that one clip, it could be argued that sounds of explosions could already have happened & that's why they can't be heard.

bbc, is a very very bad service, they employ only whites and british born asian / black workers, whom got some sort of PHD in being a complete idiot on national TV.

even i got rejected for a job interview. i dont trust anything they say after the bbc corp, made those fake-in calls

bbc = scums = greedy white CEO