Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

Gotcha...come on folks, I am just looking for the answer to 2 simple questions. Just two that in my mind sum up the entire WTC 7 conspiracy. I have asked these in so many threads and it kills them quite a bit so I am wondering if I am hitting a nerve.


1. Why did the government wait so long to take out WTC 7? Would it have not been beneficial for them to set off the mysterious invisible explosives when the other towers collapsed? (This is a simple logistical question, I do not want to hear about big oil)

2. WHERE is the evidence of explosives? I don't care if you used a top secret explosive...there would be residue or at least one relay/switch/terminal that would have assisted with the explosion. However, there is nothing.

I will accept answers from trolls, trannies, truthers , commies, pinkos and evening bible thumping republicans viewpoint. I am just trying so hard to see what so many of you in these forums sees. I mean, if you wanted to create a piece of fiction that is one thing but please, convince me without links to garbage propaganda websites. I implore you.

Lack of evidence is not surprising in the least.
How fast did they have all of the steel on barges and getting loaded onto an ore ship to have taken to be melted down?
This disaster should have been forensically processed and completely studied. Instead they were melting down the evidence as soon as they could get it to a steel mill.


The reason they 'Waited" to "Pull' building 7 was probably that somebody screwed up. It was obviously brought down by explosives but it should have been done when the first tower went down and covered half of Manhattan with dust. It wouldn't have been such an obvious inside job.

Originally posted by badgerprints
The reason they 'Waited" to "Pull' building 7 was probably that somebody screwed up. It was obviously brought down by explosives but it should have been done when the first tower went down and covered half of Manhattan with dust. It wouldn't have been such an obvious inside job.

So, the detonator(s) failed? And then what? they trundled inside amongst all the choking dust and debris to check everything is all connected, then trundle back outside to where ever they were hiding to set the explosives off?

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Chadwickus]

THanks Badgerprint for the comments.

So, they screwed up the demolition? Ok. So, how did they correct it? Who was there and would sacrifice their life?

As far as shipping all the steel, this is a fallacy. There is plenty left, you jsut have to have access to it. In fact, there are tons rusting in the midwest since it was to be used in a building that was never created. 44000 pounds to be exact in O'Fallon Missouri.

posted by esdad71

1. Why did the government wait so long to take out WTC 7? Would it have not been beneficial for them to set off the mysterious invisible explosives when the other towers collapsed? (This is a simple logistical question, I do not want to hear about big oil)

1. Somebody screwed up and left the controller in his lunch box back in the van?

2. They were waiting for the Flight 93 replacement aircraft and nobody passed the word that it was lost way up north somewhere? A simple lack of communication until the 'boss' decided to drop it without the plane? That might explain why three networks got the word early and spilled the beans.

3. To add as much confusion to the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY as possible. They already had their maximum Shock & Awe effect when Flt 175 hit the South Tower and when the two towers exploded, pulverizing everything from the top down.

posted by esdad71

2. WHERE is the evidence of explosives? I don't care if you used a top secret explosive...there would be residue or at least one relay/switch/terminal that would have assisted with the explosion. However, there is nothing.

Really? How do you know there was nothing? NIST did not bother to test for explosives did they? Real scientists were not allowed access to the towers or WTC7 were they? Firefighters were immediately gag-ordered weren't they? They could not ship the steel out of country fast enough could they? Baby Bush blocked an investigation for a long time didn't he?

Major McCormack, the WTC hero who raised the fallen flag on September 11, 2001 was arrested by a SWAT team. A victim of government harassment. Why? McCormack had concluded that around 75% of police, firemen and rescue personnel that he had personally spoken with now believed there was a cover-up pertaining to 9/11 and that many had been threatened that "if they ever open their mouth their pensions are at risk."

Really? How do you know there was nothing? NIST did not bother to test for explosives did they? Real scientists were not allowed access to the towers or WTC7 were they? Firefighters were immediately gag-ordered weren't they? They could not ship the steel out of country fast enough could they? Baby Bush blocked an investigation for a long time didn't he?

reply to post by SPreston


First, Three researchers at NIST have been awarded Nobel Prizes for their work in physics, William D. Phillips in 1997, Eric A. Cornell in 2001 and John L. Hall in 2005 to name a few.

Bush funded the 9/11 commission which destroyed the US intel community and even gave then extra funding when they wanted to extend the investigation.

Also, all the steel was not removed and sold. Ridiculous...

reply to post by Chadwickus


Playing devils advocate her but yeah, why not? It actually didn't get demoed til late afternoon. I' might have been a bad decision on when to do the demo.

Originally posted by esdad71
1. Why did the government wait so long to take out WTC 7?

Let me see what my crystal ball says, oh wait I don't have one.

2. WHERE is the evidence of explosives?implore you.

Where is the evidence that there was enough damage, and the fires were hot enough, to cause a 48 story building to fall symmetrically, through the path of most resistance, into its own footprint? Where is the physics that explains how that can happen from sporadic fires and asymmetrical damage (on one side only). Where is the precedence used to prove this is even possible?

Then explain what alternative there is to a 'natural collapse'?

It was either a 'natural collapse' from damage and fire, proven physically impossible, or it was a 'controlled demolition' of some kind. The physics points to the later as we all know, except you I guess?

(I use the term 'controlled demolition' loosely)

Physics cannot explain your hypothesis, and it cannot be reproduced in the lab, so logic points to the alternative.

[edit on 1/13/2009 by ANOK]

Originally posted by esdad71
....and even gave then extra funding....

....to help pursued them from 'investigating' too far from the conclusion they wanted from the 'investigation'...


But of course in esdads world everything the government and media do, and say, is exactly as they do, and say.

The rest of us know better...I mean isn't it pretty damned obvious by now?

Originally posted by esdad71
As far as shipping all the steel, this is a fallacy. There is plenty left, you jsut have to have access to it. In fact, there are tons rusting in the midwest since it was to be used in a building that was never created. 44000 pounds to be exact in O'Fallon Missouri.

If this is so, why did we have to make new laws so this very same thing didn't happen again?

Originally posted by Griff
I'm just going to post pertenant parts but please read this document in it's entirety. Look at what they admit. It's in plane site yet we who question all this are the "crazies".

Washington, D.C. - President Bush has signed into law legislation sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Queens & Brooklyn) and Science Committee Chair Sherwood Boehlert (R - NY), and New York Senators Clinton and Schumer, to overhaul building collapse investigations. The National Construction Safety Team Act will ensure that the mishandled evidence and in-fighting that hobbled FEMA’s World Trade Center investigation never happens again. Rep. Weiner issued the following statement:

"Thousands of tons of steel were carted away from ground zero and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been tell-tale clues. Support trusses, fireproofing fragments and even burnt out electrical switches that might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever - even before an investigation was underway.

"These failures mean that we are short--even to this day--on conclusions about design decisions that may have contributed to the deaths of so many firefighters and workers on the top floors.

"First, just as the NTSB immediately sequesters evidence involved in a plane crash, our bill creates immediate on-site authority for investigators of collapses to have access to and preservation of important materials. And–if necessary–the new panel may subpoena materials.

"Never again will we see the destruction of materials and the legal jousting that marked the scene of the 9/11 attack, where even the blueprints of the buildings took weeks to secure.

www.house.gov...

Straight from the horses mouth folks. The "truthers' didn't make this stuff up.



[edit on 6/21/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 6/21/2008 by Griff]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let me ask you esdad. As an engineer, do you find this acceptable?

See, the problem here is that most people don't want to believe that the towers were demoed. That implicates our government in mass murder. We WANT to believe we live in a good country with good people at the helm.

But...

WTC 7 was an OBVIOUS demolition.
The building was empty and nobody died in it. It fell perfectly within its own footprint. It was a textbook example of a well executed demolition.
This type of activity occurs on a regular basis as a matter of course in the demolition industry. It is down to a science.

If this had happened on any other day then it would be unremarkable.

The problem is that it was blamed on the two biggest buildings in Manhattan falling down one right after the other.

You might say, "OK , but that doesn't prove that the towers were brought down by explosives."
You would be right. The problem is that it does prove that this was planned and executed ahead of time. It was carried out by professionals that know demolitions. This means that they knew that they would have the towers collapse to blame WTC 7s' demolition on.
It makes the 911 inside job a totally plausible scenario.

Now we don't really have a choice but to consider the worst.

reply to post by badgerprints


If it was a text book demolition then it would have to be set up like a textbook demolition, you know, weakening of support walls, precise charges laid all over the building, walls wrapped in heavy duty cloth so the laid charges don't explode outwards.

Vegas Demolition

Miami Hotel

Originally posted by esdad71
1. Why did the government wait so long to take out WTC 7?

1) My guess is that they ran out of airplanes. So they had to wait until the focus was at least partially diverted from ground zero so as to not draw too much attention to WTC7.

WTC7 in laymen's terms
www.abovetopsecret.com...

2. WHERE is the evidence of explosives? I don't care if you used a top secret explosive...there would be residue or at least one relay/switch/terminal that would have assisted with the explosion. However, there is nothing.

2) Please find your answer here

Could explosives have been put into the World Trade Centers during construction?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There HAD to be explosives in the twin towers
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Be sure to read all of this one.

Get Smart! Epispde 52
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Chadwickus

The external visual clues were obviously avoided. Internally, it obviously worked.
You've got to understand something about me.
I'm not a follow the trend guy. I was in the army for 8 years. I am Red White and Blue Hardcore American Patriot. I used to be a right wing warhawk and would never have second guessed our govt.
It was hard to come to this belief for me.
I was livid when I first heard somebody imply that explosives were used on 911. I mean I was pissed.
I've been wrestling with this for years and honestly don't like what I've come up with. It was hard to come to this belief for me.
I have spent time going back and studying demolitions. I used to be a commercial construction superintendent so I do have some knowledge of what is in there. I don't wan't to believe these things occured. It turns my stomach. I'm not the "final word" on these matters but I've seen enough to see the obvious.
We can argue til doomsday and disagree. I respect your belief but I can't agree with it.
I wish wasn't true but that building was demoed.

hmmm let's see... a bait and switch title/thread and two very lame questions.

More interested in playing games then in a worthwhile inquiry... are we?

I don't see anything about 7 that would prompt one to embrace the OS,
it's really the OS's weakest link in defense. The structural debris that flew over 6 and hit the side of 7, was nothing to merit a collapse... especially 5 1/2 hours later... but in order to sell the fire as the main cause of collapse for all three towers, the long wait is required.

The question i have is... WTC7 collapsed at free-fall speed in it's own foot-print and you want evidence that it was a CD? Is it really that hard for you to grasp the obvious? ... oh wait... that's right this thread is meant to be a joke... never mind.

The building was empty and nobody died in it. It fell perfectly within its own footprint. It was a textbook example of a well executed demolition

A "textbook" demolition, does not damage surrounding buildings. WTC 7's collapse caused so much damage to 30 West Broadway that it was torn down.

But, the question is (and has yet to be satisfactorily answered by ANYONE) how did WTC 7 get wired for demolition and no one noticed?

Quite frankly, anyone that believes the three buildings were controlled demolitions dont know a doggone thing about demolitions.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by ANOK


i agree the fires where no where near hot enough to even effect these beams

look how thick they both are

mingus.charlesmingus3art.com...


dose everyone realize the energy needed to even make a beam this big?



www.lukenshistoricdistrict.org...

blog.cleveland.com...

www.eef.org.uk...

www.bharatforge.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

my cousin is a welder/metal worker he is always going on and on and on about how much energy is needed to keep the steel molten, and trust me no open air flame could ever generate enough energy to remotely effect those steel beams .

pots dont melt or glow red on the stove ,soda cans dont melt in camp fires ,and building fires dont melt 8 inch thick solid steel beams (thermodynamically imposable).

if u took a 10 foot piece of 1 inch rebar place one end in a camp fire see how long it takes for the end you are holding to reach the same temp as the end in the flame, it never would .

so that being said take a whole building full of thick steel , with a flame on the other side of the building , do you guys really think the heat could actually transfer threw out the whole structure to cause all the beams to become soft?? NO it couldnt agin (thermodynamically imposable)

no where that day should there have been any kind of slag from harden molten steel or molten steel period.

i know we are talking about WTC7 but the twin towers had molten steel pouring out of it and on the ground (thermodynamically imposable)

steel will not stay molten falling a 1000 feet threw the air and stay molten
with out some kind of energy source it would be solid way way befor it hit the ground.

everything has a BTU factor , from paper to steel , somethings just need huge amounts of energy to burn, like steel minimum of 2750 f to melt steel and must be maintained or it will solidify

so unless WTC 7 had some huge arc furnace inside the steel should have just been charred



[edit on 13-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 13-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 13-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

I don't have the links but there are pieces on the web about people who noticed and later reported unusual activities by contractors on the few days previous. I don't really have any evidence on that to give.
Truth is though, When or how don't matter as much as the result. The result speaks very clearly.


[edit on 13-1-2009 by badgerprints]

reply to post by lycopersicum


another pic of electrode doing there thing

images.google.com...://www.electrode-handling.com/images/user_images/molten_steel.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.electrode-handling.c om/&usg=__pRLiiHh_LbUdmZxyWP8lsXQXenY=&h=135&w=175&sz=15&hl=en&start=62&um=1&tbnid=bmZo257slGQNNM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=100&prev=/images%3Fq%3Delectric%2Barc% 2Bfurnace%26start%3D42%26ndsp%3D21%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

www.uk-yorkshireexplore.co.uk...

cache.daylife.com...

sorry for all the pics this steel making is truely aww inspiring so much energy is needed

you can literly power new york with the energy needed

reply to post by badgerprints


Thanks for confirming my earlier post.

The tallest building on record of being imploded is the J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit, Michigan. To prep this 439 foot tall building it took...

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

4,118 separate charges.....36,000 feet of detonating cord....24 days.......for a 33 story building and that was after other companies had spent over three months stripping the building down to allow the necessary access to the structure for the charges.

And you think that some contractors manage to wire THREE buildings (over 3,000 feet tall added together) in a matter of days.....with no one noticing???

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]