PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Heads up

The childish personal rhetoric and outright pointless baiting of other people stops now.

If you can't debate an issue in a civilised manner - and I don't care which side of the argument you come from - simply don't post.

I hope thats clear.

I have no idea what to believe with regards to this other than I believe the OS less every day.

Something did just occur to me though, If it took a plane to bring down WTC buildings then surely WTC 7 (which no plane hit) should not have come down so easily or so cleanly.

Regardless. of what really happened that day, the famillies that lost loved ones deserve their questions to be answered.

On a side note i dont recall any other building of that magnitude collapsing from fire as they say it did.

Peace

[edit on 14-2-2010 by tempest501]

Originally posted by tempest501
Something did just occur to me though, If it took a plane to bring down WTC buildings then surely WTC shouldnt have come down so easily or so cleanly.

There's no logic behind this

I do wonder how many posters on this thread have actually read NIST's report on WTC 7. Here is a link to it :-

wtc.nist.gov...

It took 3 years of investigation to produce and, if you don't read any further, at least see who contributed to it. Amongst the main investigators and project leaders are a ScD and 7 PhDs. Scores of NIST technical staff , many other experts, consultants and contractors.

Against this highly qualified assembly of experts we have yet another youtube video which is said to prove something quite different from NIST's findings in minutes. Is there not an absurd imbalance here ? Why would most rational people favour a youtube vid over NIST's findings ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
Why would most rational people favour a youtube vid over NIST's findings ?

They wouldn't.

But like I said, the rational long left this little circle of hell.

I think the Faithers should, if they hope to actually achieve something (tangible) solidify their position.

Even if that meant not all agreeing 100%.

IF they had a united position and en masse tried to accomplish doable things, like circulate reasonable petitions around the country, etc., they might possibly go somewhere.

But this endless self-destructive in-fighting and especially the re-posting of debunked stuff or completely insane stuff just undercuts any legitimacy some Faithers are striving for.

I said long ago that if the Faithers just stuck with QUESTIONS they'd be a much more viable movement.

It's the ANSWERS that get them in trouble... because all the answers are opinions.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Is there not an absurd imbalance here ? Why would most rational people favour a youtube vid over NIST's findings ?

Rational people favour SOME youtube's because you can see the evidence
with your own eyes.
Sometimes the evidence is just that clear.
"A picture is worth a thousand words"

NIST , is a agency that was given a RESULT. Then fit the science to come
up with the needed causes.

YouTube is a medium, like TV, radio or a newspaper. To try and discount evidence because it's posted on YouTube is no different than disbelieving everything you see on TV or read in the paper, it makes no sense. If you're going to use an ad hominen argument which, granted, in itself isn't a logical fallacy, at least refer to the source of the information, not the medium through which it's presented.

In any case, by now it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that if WTC6 could stand for days with a big hole in the middle of it

it's impossible for WTC7 to collapse symmetrically into its own footprint within hours having damage only to one side. Only a controlled demolition explains what happened to WTC-7 and that means someone is lying. I suggest waterboarding Larry Silverstein for more information.

If it looks like a duck and squawks like a duck:
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Crito


I don't care what the medium is; youtube or anything else. We have plenty of posters on this thread who seem to prefer to come to a conclusion based on a short video clip rather than the findings of highly qualified experts after a 3 year study.

To many, I think that will seem an irrational determination to believe something regardless of the evidence.

reply to post by seethelight


Faithers is the PERFECT term for the blind believers in the fallacious 9/11 OS. I hope you can be credited with coining it. Better a truther than faither! I hope there will be plenty of thread titles and posts henceforth using that F word. It fits in with my long time assertion that the definition of religion should be expanded to include all rank and file, (now) more popular politics/secrecy-BASED government. It's all a house of cards built on a foundation of styrofoam. Weak, weak, flimsy, flimsy BELIEFS, not to be confused with facts.

Originally posted by Alfie1
We have plenty of posters on this thread who seem to prefer to come to a conclusion based on a short video clip rather than the findings of highly qualified experts after a 3 year study

Maybe Alf.

We all saw how Qualified Experts did such a bang up job on WMD in Iraq.

I do believe those Experts ALSO worked for the same Government.

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by Alfie1
We have plenty of posters on this thread who seem to prefer to come to a conclusion based on a short video clip rather than the findings of highly qualified experts after a 3 year study

Maybe Alf.

We all saw how Qualified Experts did such a bang up job on WMD in Iraq.

I do believe those Experts ALSO worked for the same Government.

WMD was a failure of intelligence and I can't see that it has anything at all to do with investigating WTC 7.

You said earlier " NIST is an agency that was given a RESULT. Then fit the science to come up with needed causes." Have you got a shred of evidence to support that ? and were the independent consultants, advisers, and contractors also supposed to come up with a pre-determined result ?

reply to post by Alfie1


there is a difference between failure of intelligence and cherry picking intelligence.

the CIA admitted that the Bush admin was asking for information that was inaccurate regardless how old or false it was, so long as it said Iraq had WMD's. THEY WANTED TO INVADE IRAQ - NOT STOP SADDAM.

As for WTC7, there are more professionals who would say it was a CD than there are "professionals" working for shady government agencies using pseudo-science to trick the public into believing a tower collapsed in a way that can ONLY happen by way of controlled demolition.

The OS trolls on this website are a minority... and not just on ATS - in the country!

I'm very sick of these trolls saying "no one believes your silly conspiracy theories" when the fact of the matter is most people in the country BELIEVE they were lied to about 9/11 by their government.

Whether or not the government had involvement there is still a conspiracy to cover up the truth. That much is "hella" obvious.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by lozenge]

Originally posted by Alfie1

Against this highly qualified assembly of experts . . . . . . . . . .

Why would most rational people favour a youtube vid over NIST's findings ?

Since NIST is filled with liars such as John Gross . . . . . . .

and since some of the NIST scientists strongly disagree with the contrived NIST results . . . . . . . .

and since a high school physics teacher forced NIST to amend their results (2.25 second freefall) . . . . . .

and since the NIST model is a tragic joke on science . . . . . . . . .

and since NIST is obviously a political tool of the DemoPublican One Party System . . . . . .

and since NIST is still obviously lying . . . . . . . . .

why should we believe anything from NIST?

In their final report issued November 20, 2008, the NIST report's authors stated they had made a more detailed examination, and found a 2.25-second period in which the center roofline exhibited a "freefall drop for approximately 8 stories". Chandler had measured a 2.5-second period. For all practical purposes, the time period can be thought of as two seconds.

The NIST report did not state the significance of a freefall drop. The significance is that during that period of freefall, all of the gravitational energy (also known as potential energy) is converted to energy of motion (also known as kinetic energy). There is no energy available for doing other work, such as breaking up structural columns or hurling structural pieces out of the way. Figure 1 is an illustration depicting these points.

NIST tried to hide its admission of freefall from public view, by not listing it in the description of the changes it made in response to public comments. Admitting to freefall leads directly to the question, what source of energy eliminated the eight stories of building structure?

Evidently the NIST authors didn't want to go there.

www.ae911truth.org...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3abd8190fbe1.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a78a9c1d5d4c.jpg[/atsimg]

NIST NONSENSE
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/82ed4f992152.jpg[/atsimg]

MORE NIST NONSENSE
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b3a23848587.jpg[/atsimg]

AND MORE NIST NONSENSE
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/02883bf2c1b0.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by lozenge


To describe NIST as "a shady government agency " using pseudo-science" is offensive and absurd. Do you also apply those terms to the consultants and advisers who assisted NIST with the WTC 7 investigation. Your reaction just seems to be an emotional denial of NIST's findings.

If you maintain that NIST's findings in regard to WTC 7 are perverse and any amateur watching a video clip can tell it is a cd then where are the relevant professional bodies protesting NIST's results. Can you refer me to any relevant professional body in the western world disputing NIST's findings ?

reply to post by GenRadek


You also need to learn the difference between beams and columns.
You keep on quoting beams when I think you mean columns.

PEACE,
RK

Originally posted by Alfie1
Against this highly qualified assembly of experts we have yet another youtube video which is said to prove something quite different from NIST's findings in minutes. Is there not an absurd imbalance here ? Why would most rational people favour a youtube vid over NIST's findings ?

So if some experts told you that cow dung tasted like french vanilla icecream would you jump into the nearest pasture and start eating?

I don't need "experts" to tell me what happened. Fire could not collapse a building like that. Do I have to post endless pics of buildings ablaze (huge fires, not like WTC7) and not collapsing? If some isolated fires could neatly demolish a huge steel and concrete structure like that.......we would be in serious trouble....buildings falling over left, right and center.

reply to post by SPreston

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by GenRadek

 

The towers were top down demolitions. WTC7 was a bottom up demolition. What you don't see in the videos blocked from view behind the buildings is the explosions running up from the lower floors, well ahead of the bottom up demolition wave.

Those explosions on the lower 30 floors happened before the roofline dropped.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d97a33c0a367.gif[/atsimg]

I haven't been involved in 9/11 discussions in a long while and Im not sure why I've decided to jump into this snake pit now, but looking at your animation it certainly looks as if the mini "explosions", if you will, do run from the bottom up.

Could this be considered evidence of a breach in the structure from the lower floors which caused this building to fall on top of itself?

Would it be fair to consider that the fires, which were allowed to burn for several hours on the lower floors of WTC 7 prior to its collapse, could have weakened the integrity of the structure just enough to cause it to finally give out under it's own weight?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c37d32c5e330.jpg[/atsimg]

Any chance that these fires helped cause that collapse?

I'm sured this is been brought up already but thought I'd ask it anyway

reply to post by Alfie1


FEMA AND NIST DON'T AGREE ON WTC7

^^
That's just a start. Lemme know if you want me to prove you wrong some more.

cant beleve people still dont beleve 9\11..
but thers alot of us out there so when they relese it (if) we can help explane alot better then if nobody knew

Originally posted by DeafRaz
undeniable evidence video.

if you don't want to watch whole video then go fast forward to 3:45. there it go BINGO.

it support that they are there for demolition. twin towers+ WTC building 7+ video truck demolition = wake up people!!!

i dunno how to make show youtube here. please someone do it for me thanks.

Yes DeafRaz, there is a preponderance of evidence proving demolition of WTC7;

from Barry Jennings to firemen and civilian eyewitnesses describing explosions to simple visual common sense from the collapse videos to the NIST findings/adjusted against their will to 8 story freefall findings.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d97a33c0a367.gif[/atsimg]