PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Building 7 is still the best evidence that controlled demolitions were used. Keep in mind, for small buildings it takes weeks to prepare demolitions. For larger buildings it can take up to two months. Under no circumstance whatsoever, are we physically able to outfit a tall skyscraper with explosives on-the-spot in a matter of hours. No team is capable of doing such a feat.

Given that, the following quote doesn't make much sense if you believe that no explosives were present.

Here's the Fox News article.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

If they expected it to fall, spending weeks/months planting explosives would have been 100% out of the question. No demolition team would operate within a building whose "foundation was already unstable" for even a moment, let alone the weeks/months required to outfit the building. There is absolutely no way.

A fact of reality - completely contradictory to the official story - yet there it is. And it has lots of company too. Remember when BBC reported that Building 7 had collapsed before the event? Of course, nobody has provided a remotely reasonable explanation for that, at least not while juggling all the other inconsistencies in the OS.

This case is almost completely closed. Until someone can provide a peer-reviewed rebuttal of the Niels Harrit / Steven Jones "Active Thermitic Material Found..." paper, then science by way of hard evidence has given its solemn answer on the matter.

Controlled Demolition using thermitic material.

This next video is pretty good too.
"Keep 'yer eye on that building, that thing's comin' down."
"The building is about to blow up - move it back. "
"Here, I'm walking back, there's a building about to blow up"


It's like defending OJ Simpson. Bewildering.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

So why is there no evidence whatsoever of the second type of explosive?

I guess your talking about the explosive type? They didn't check for explosives for one thing. And many demolition explosives are self consuming. Their is nothing left after they explode. Their were plenty of witnesses that say they heard all types of explosives. You can't hear the explosions on most of the taped coverage.

video.google.com...#

And why do the collapses of the towers begin at the points where the aircraft struck them?

Because the plane impacts were close to the top of the buildings where the demolition wave started. One of the towers would have fallen over at the weakened area but didn't have a chance as it was blown to bits.



[edit on 16-6-2010 by Doctor Smith]

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

I guess your talking about the explosive type? They didn't check for explosives for one thing. And many demolition explosives are self consuming. Their is nothing left after they explode. Their were plenty of witnesses that say they heard all types of explosives. You can't hear the explosions on most of the taped coverage.

video.google.com...#

There are witnesses who say they heard explosions a long time before the towers came down, but there aren't any explosions as they begin to fall.

Look at the footage of the controlled demos available all over this forum. In all of them there is a series of sharp cracks to blow the supports, explosive squibs, then the buildings start to come down. Neither of the towers look or sound like that. You yourself have in this thread suggested that the explosions were "quiet", which is an admission in itself that there isn't really any aural evidence.

Because the plane impacts were close to the top of the buildings where the demolition wave started. One of the towers would have fallen over at the weakened area but didn't have a chance as it was blown to bits.



[edit on 16-6-2010 by Doctor Smith]

But the collapses don't start at the tops, they start at the points of impact. And on tower two the impact point isn't at all close to the summit.

Look at the video you posted above and watch the collapse of tower one. You can clearly see that the collapse initiates at exactly the point where the plane went in. The top floors are basically intact for a period of time at the start.

As for the "exploding" tower top, I can't see it. I mean, I literally can't see it - it's obscured by smoke and dust. It's fanciful to say that it was "blown to pieces because you simply can't observe that.

I can't stress enough how important this point is - the fact of where the collapses began. Unless someone can convince me that a demolition can plausibly be practically silent in its initiation and then begin at the exact place where the planes went in in both cases, then I can't countenance a CD.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

No!

I asked you a question, a very simple question and you can't give me a straight answer.

Now I will ask it again, in plain english.

Did Steven Jones find "iron-rich" microspheres in the post-ignition samples that were not present in the pre-ignition samples?

Yes or no.

Truly, not difficult.

Steven Jones makes that claim. Your question assumes that the chips were not present initially because Jones says he did not find them. You attempt to use a logical fallacy and force the answer. "Did you stop robbing banks yet? Yes or no."
Not finding iron-rich microspheres in pre-ignition chips and finding them is post-ignition chips does not prove causation. I believe that Jones did not find the spheres in the initial samples and found them in the post ignition samples. No one can say if they were present but not found in the pre-ignition chips.
All he has to do is to run the DSC under inert to show a reaction that is definitely not combustion.

"There are witnesses who say they heard explosions a long time before the towers came down, but there aren't any explosions as they begin to fall.

Look at the footage of the controlled demos available all over this forum. In all of them there is a series of sharp cracks to blow the supports, explosive squibs, then the buildings start to come down. Neither of the towers look or sound like that. You yourself have in this thread suggested that the explosions were "quiet", which is an admission in itself that there isn't really any aural evidence."

Check out the video below. How many explosions do you hear prior to this building collapsing to the ground? I'd say at least 8-10. To not make it appear obvious, one can theorize the WTC explosions were staggered and set off during an extended time frame. The eyewitness accounts would validate such an occurrence.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


How would staggered explosions cause the supports to fail simultaneously? Why do the collapses begin from the point where the planes entered the buildings?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Neither of the towers look or sound like that. You yourself have in this thread suggested that the explosions were "quiet", which is an admission in itself that there isn't really any aural evidence.

No. I'm simply bringing attention to the fact that they would take the buildings down using the latest stealth methods. Normally it wouldn't matter if it was loud or not.

www.youtube.com...

Building 7 was taken down by explosives. It was admitted by FOX. Not even up for debate.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

No. I'm simply bringing attention to the fact that they would take the buildings down using the latest stealth methods. Normally it wouldn't matter if it was loud or not.
Building 7 was taken down by explosives. It was admitted by FOX. Not even up for debate.

Well, if FOX said it, it must be true. What are some of those "latest stealth methods" of 2001?

reply to post by Doctor Smith


Why are you changing the subject? And why have you not answered the other part of my post? Is it too difficult? Because if that's the case your theory is probably wrong.

And what do you mean "no"? You yourself said that the towers were demolished with "quiet" explosives from the top. Never mind that these don't seem to exist, you now have three types of demolition charge, and you still can't answer why the destruction doesn't, in fact, begin at the summit.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

reply to post by pteridine


I have zero use for you. You don't have a straight answer for anything. You're a tapdancer, always have been, always will be.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

I have zero use for you. You don't have a straight answer for anything. You're a tapdancer, always have been, always will be.

I have explained many times the errors in Jones' paper. I have answered your question about the shperes Jones claims to have seen several times over. I am not responsible for your logical errors or failure to understand simple concepts. The DSC must be run under inert atmosphere and until that happens, none of the other evidence is worth considering.
I note that it is you who does not have any answers. You seem only to ask questions and complain when you do not like the answers. You carefully avoid the critical issues because you are unable to refute my criticisms of Jones' paper. Your cut-and-paste questions from various truther websites are standard fare but your technical illiteracy prevents you from understanding them or intelligently discussing them. There are no elemental iron spheres.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Why are you changing the subject? And why have you not answered the other part of my post? Is it too difficult? Because if that's the case your theory is probably wrong. And what do you mean "no"? You yourself said that the towers were demolished with "quiet" explosives from the top. Never mind that these don't seem to exist, you now have three types of demolition charge, and you still can't answer why the destruction doesn't, in fact, begin at the summit.

To spell it out for you. Did you see the molten metal dripping out the side of the buildings? No it wasn't aluminum. Aluminum doesn't glow red in daylight. And it wasn't hot enough of a fire to melt any aluminum anyway.

That was likely thermite used to weaken the building. The demolition charges were probably in toward the center near the elevator shafts where you could access the steel core. That's one way of making it less obvious.

If you look at the antenna Attached to the core steel structure on one of the buildings. It sunk straight down and was the first thing to collapse. This means their was no support from the steel core. If the planes caused the collapse the building would have just fallen over at that point in the structure. It wouldn't have taken the whole building down through solid steel that gets stronger as you go down.

Can you show me just one example of a global collapse of a steel frame building? Other than demolition? Good luck.

reply to post by pteridine

Lucky for us...there are people who see your posts as obtuse BS.

Tell dereks I say helloez...not to mention the others...


Civility And Decorum Are Required on AboveTopSecret.com

[edit on Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:18:18 -0500 by MemoryShock]

reply to post by pteridine

All he has to do is to run the DSC under inert to show a reaction that is definitely not combustion.

By your logic even if Jones ran the test inert. How would you know that the chips were not combusted ahead of time!
Jones may have made a mistake and not realized the chips were already combusted! LOL

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by pteridine

 

All he has to do is to run the DSC under inert to show a reaction that is definitely not combustion.

By your logic even if Jones ran the test inert. How would you know that the chips were not combusted ahead of time!
Jones may have made a mistake and not realized the chips were already combusted! LOL

If the chips were already completely combusted, there would be no energy release. He saw an energy release and saw differences between the paint before and after partial combustion.

reply to post by TrustMeIKnow


Since you seem to be a self-styled expert, try to answer this basic question: "If the paint chips were highly engineered nano-thermite, why didn't they burn completely when ignited?"

reply to post by pteridine


I cant believe that some people dont get THAT part at least! The chips were already combusted?

I'm afraid this is what happens when they stop funding science classes in school.

Being 114 pages, I'm not sure if any of this has been presented before, and I don't want to put the entire content of my thread here so I'll just add a few quotes. But there are numerous reports of secondary explosions heard from the towers, and surrounding area throughout the day. Many can probably be attributed to car fires, transformers, and the actual building collapse. But that may not be the case for all of them.

...The parked cars that been parked there were all on fire and which wasn't on fire was exploding. We didn't know at that point. I know that one of the police officers said that he thought that they were bombs and maybe they rigged them to blow up. Just secondary explosions. We didn't know what to do...

...the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse...

...I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a pancake. I remember my jaw dropping...

...Q. Bill, just one question. The fire that you saw, where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started collapsing?

A. It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the impact area of the plane. I saw it as fire and when I looked at it on television afterwards, it doesn't appear to show the fire. It shows a rush of smoke coming out below the area of the plane impact. The reason why I think the cameras didn't get that image is because they were a far distance away and maybe I saw the bottom side where the plane was and the smoke was up above it...

...Meanwhile we were standing there with about five companies and we were just waiting for our assignmentand then there was an explosion in the south tower, which according to this map, this exposure jut blew out in flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and wen it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.

...At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges. We had really no concept of the damage on the east side of 2 World Trade Center at that point, and at that point many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade...

...There were secondary explosiongs, I don't know, aerosol cans or whatever. But we're in the darkness we see basically the glow of a flashlight and still things coming down. The noise, the explosions, whatever it was. I don't know, we just realized we had to ge the heck out of there...

...It was just like a crescendo sound like boom, boom, boom, and it just got louder and faster for like -- what did it las, ten seconds or something like that...

...When the north tower collapsed, I remember seeing the anenna do a little rock back and forth and I could just hear the floors pancaking. I heard if for 30 pancakes, just boom, boom, boom, boom and the dust blew up to us...

...that's when the south tower collapsed, and it sounded like a bunch of explosions. You heard like loud booms, but I guess it was all just stuff coming down...

...The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple seconds and all of a sudden you just heard like it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight...

...I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit...

BUILDING 7

...Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --

Q. A collapse zone?

A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been....

...I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that...

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Theres a lot of things I'd like to discuss from these quotes, but I'll save that for my thread if you're interested.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
Can you show me just one example of a global collapse of a steel frame building? Other than demolition? Good luck.

Can you, once again, explain to me why the collapses, if initiated by bombs, started where the planes entered the buildings?

And no offence, but your question is just pointless. No other buildings of comparable size and design have undergone similar impacts.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith Can you show me just one example of a global collapse of a steel frame building? Other than demolition? Good luck.

Can you, once again, explain to me why the collapses, if initiated by bombs, started where the planes entered the buildings? And no offence, but your question is just pointless. No other buildings of comparable size and design have undergone similar impacts.

I have already told what I think. The impacts were close to the tops of the buildings. They used remote detonators that are available but not commonly used due to expense. They could have detonated the building depending on where the planes hit. To me it looks like the demolition wave started at almost at the top. It just started crumbling and the impact areas really didn't have anything to do with it. The fires were almost out. People standing in the impact holes so the temperatures were down.


This thread is about building seven remember. It wasn't hit by any planes. You will never find any building that went down the way building seven did. A Global Collapse! Looks like you already gave up. You've been looking for days.


They say 7 was damaged from the debris but it was a 100 yards away with another building in between it. Earthquakes. Fires. There is nothing but demolition that could take it down like that. Nobody has found an example so far so don't feel too bad. Your not alone.