PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Whenever Building 7 gets mentioned -- I like to bring up the happy coincidences for the Bush family.

The Building Plans for the Ports Authority were there.
The case files for ENRON were there.
A court case alleging $17 Billion in Federal Note fraud against the Bush family was going to go against them -- but the evidence was in Building 7.
About $65 Billion in Gold Bullion went missing -- apparently, victim of the same fireball that jumped down the building.

We get all these damn theories about how steel collapses in a fire -- and they are based on a vacuum backfire, the bridge-construction technique in Building 1 and 2. And WTC only gets 1 corner on fire, no Kerosene (jet fuel), and now plane hitting it -- and it must have been an exploding propane tank in someone's kitchen. In the history of mankind - the only three steel buildings to collapse due to fire are all in the same incident -- and it's all so damn convenient.

And coincidence after coincidence -- a PERFECT STORM, where NORAD is running terrorist simulations, and the cameras stop working in the WTC, and the Pentagon doesn't have cameras or the AA that we KNOW they have, and the passports survive the blast, and a plane hitting the ground (meant for WTC 7) apparently has an engine 7 miles away which MUST HAVE BOUNCED, and the debris is gone -- unlike ANY other airplane crash ever, and the head of security for the FAA destroys the RADAR records -- and we have to believe trust them that a plane didn't just fly low over the Pentagon and keep on going with a blast for cover (just my theory -- but I'm not hung up on it).

Just one or two crazy things, with someone from the Bush family would make me wonder. But we've got the Magic Bullet at Dealey Plaza, with a picture of George Bush outside the Library and a plane ticket on CIA records with his name on it flying to meet with Hoover.

And we argue it like this is an isolated incident. George Bush should be at a trial ready to hang for approving torture. Dick Cheney should have hung for trading oil with Saddam Hussein during the first Iraq War (which was also bogus and the invasion of Kuwait happened with NO ROYALTY in the country). Tricky Dick made his fortune offshoring rich people's money so they didn't pay taxes.

I could type for probably two days covering every damn coincidence in these two people's lives -- and every bit of it would have documentation. Then we could go on for another few weeks covering everybody connected to the PNAC.

Are you people f-ing kidding me if anyone sane would NOT think of a Conspiracy in connection with the Bush administration? The guy leading the "grass roots" protest of the recount in Florida is now a supreme court justice, and the voter verification group threw out 80,000 votes -- over 90% of which were black Americans.

That damn Bush is so lucky.

Originally posted by conspiracy88
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Look, he doesn't need to say, "YES WE BROUGHT DOWN WTC7 BY DEMOLITION." It's obvious that TPTB don't give a rat's a$$ whether a few things slip out every now n then. I mean, they had the audacity to pull an act such as 9/11. What makes you think that a few slip ups every now n then is gonna damage them? They have nothing to worry about. They have their OS made up by a "commission" and besides, American's are ignorant and arrogant, their country could never commit such an act. America is the greatest of course.

But he never admitted to anything about demolition! Nothing! Nadda! ZIP! Nothing slipped out! He is talking to the FDNY fire commander on scene about the firefighters! But no, you people are just hearing what you WANT to hear, and not what is actually being said. Thats delusion!

Originally posted by GenRadek
He is talking to the FDNY fire commander on scene about the firefighters! But no, you people are just hearing what you WANT to hear, and not what is actually being said. Thats delusion!

No he could not have been talking about the firefighters because they were already out of the building before the call, according to 2 fire chiefs.

So he could have only been talking about the building when he stated PULL IT.

Originally posted by loveguy

Thanks for the advice, but to see the moments leading into a situation is a more viable determining factor, IMO.

Watch close here:



You can clearly see the windows breaking AFTER the collapse has initiated. Hence this video alone debunks the premise of this thread. No proof of explosives here at all.

Originally posted by GenRadek
You can clearly see the windows breaking AFTER the collapse has initiated. Hence this video alone debunks the premise of this thread. No proof of explosives here at all.

If the building collapsed on its own it would have collapsed to the south side where it was damaged and not straight down as in the video.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
and the Pentagon doesn't have cameras or the AA that we KNOW they have

This is yet more truther garbage - just what AA at the Pentagon are you talking about? Care to show some proof - any at all - that the Pentagon had any AA on 9/11

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by GenRadek
He is talking to the FDNY fire commander on scene about the firefighters! But no, you people are just hearing what you WANT to hear, and not what is actually being said. Thats delusion!

No he could not have been talking about the firefighters because they were already out of the building before the call, according to 2 fire chiefs.

So he could have only been talking about the building when he stated PULL IT.

You couldnt be more wrong. REMISNE, seriously I wonder if you ever pay attention to what is being stated here. I posted earlier from the COMMANDER OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AT WTC, CHIEF NIGRO when he was talking about the PULL OUT order, his words directly. HE is the one who gave the order. HE did it:

The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldnít lose any more
people.

We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World
Trade Center collapsed completely

www.nytimes.com...

I also posted a few firefighter reports which ALL state they got the orders to pull out from WTC 7 around 3-3:30PM. Did you miss all that?
They were in and around WTC7 till 3:30.

here you can reread this yourself:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by GenRadek
You can clearly see the windows breaking AFTER the collapse has initiated. Hence this video alone debunks the premise of this thread. No proof of explosives here at all.

If the building collapsed on its own it would have collapsed to the south side where it was damaged and not straight down as in the video.

Oh but it did fall towards the south! It did! It did!



Right there, it is leaning towards the south. Also did you notice the debris lay out? he North side of the building is laying on top of the debris.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh but it did fall towards the south! It did! It did!

Funny but the first video and most other vidoes including the second video shows the building collapsing straight down.

Are you trying to change stories now? I mean we know the firefighters were out of the building before the call to Silverstien, so the fire commander was talking about the building when he stated PULL IT.



[edit on 15-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


Did you even watch the video?

Like srsly...?

reply to post by REMISNE


Not the second one. Its falling with an obvious tilt towards the south. Didnt you ever wonder why the NORTH side of the building is laying on TOP of the pile? That doesnt happen in a "straight down" collapse.



That right there is the north side draped over the pile. Proof of the tilt towards the south. Even the firefighters say it was leaning.



This also shows evidence of structural integrity failing from fires. NOT from explosives.

Originally posted by Whyhi
Did you even watch the video?

Like srsly...?

The building did not fall to the South side it fell almost straight down as all videos and photos show.

But he never admitted to anything about demolition! Nothing! Nadda! ZIP!

Give me a few years to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" (aka torture) and I'll have him admitting to faking the moon landing. Either he confesses or he "suicides" himself. Worked on KSM anyways.

Why would anyone believe people who have no respect for the Geneva Conventions or habeas corpus? They've already proved they have no honor and consider themselves above the law. Killing 3000 of their own citizens doesn't seem that far fetched for the lowlife scumbags running this country.

In any case, WTC7 fits all the criteria of a controlled demolition, that much is crystal clear. Don't be distracted by crazy al-Qaeda conspiracy theorists with straw man arguments about windows. 1000 professional architects and engineers agree:


[edit on 15-2-2010 by Crito]

Originally posted by GenRadek
This also shows evidence of structural integrity failing from fires. NOT from explosives.

I mean we know the firefighters were out of the building before the call to Silverstien, so the fire commander was talking about the building when he stated PULL IT.

By the way you do not need explosives to bring down an already unstable building.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh but it did fall towards the south! It did! It did!

Funny but the first video and most other vidoes including the second video shows the building collapsing straight down.

Are you trying to change stories now? I mean we know the firefighters were out of the building before the call to Silverstien, so the fire commander was talking about the building when he stated PULL IT.



[edit on 15-2-2010 by REMISNE]

I'm not changing anything. I've been saying the same thing since day one. LS was speaking to the FIRE COMMANDER chief Nigro about pulling the fire fighting operation. Fire fighters were in and around the WTC7 at the time of the call. The call had to have come BEFORE firefighters were pulled, because firefighters all agreed they got pulled out around 3-3:30PM. So the call from Chief Nigro HAD TO HAVE come before that time. You are just not getting it are you? I posted the firefighter accounts that all CONFIRM what I say, and you just ignore them. Why is that? Is it because you dont want to be proven wrong??

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by conspiracy88
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Look, he doesn't need to say, "YES WE BROUGHT DOWN WTC7 BY DEMOLITION." It's obvious that TPTB don't give a rat's a$$ whether a few things slip out every now n then. I mean, they had the audacity to pull an act such as 9/11. What makes you think that a few slip ups every now n then is gonna damage them? They have nothing to worry about. They have their OS made up by a "commission" and besides, American's are ignorant and arrogant, their country could never commit such an act. America is the greatest of course.

But he never admitted to anything about demolition! Nothing! Nadda! ZIP! Nothing slipped out! He is talking to the FDNY fire commander on scene about the firefighters! But no, you people are just hearing what you WANT to hear, and not what is actually being said. Thats delusion!

No sir, you are the one hearing what you want to hear. Mr. Silverstein said plain as day:

"...the smartest thing to do is PULL IT. They made the decision to PULL and we watched the building collapse."

Now, let's see who is "hearing what they want to hear."

I heard him say that when the commander called and said they couldn't contain the fire, Larry said that maybe the smartest thing to do is pull IT... yes IT as in the building, since it makes no sense to refer to anything else in those terms.

Here are what you and other trusters think Larry's was saying:

You say he meant to pull the firemen out.

Now that sounds like hearing what you want to hear, since firemen, being human beings are not referred to as an IT, even when talking about a firefighting team. Larry would not have used such cryptic talk when talking about heros trying to save his building. If indeed he would use the term "pull" at all, he would have said "pull them out", "pull the guys out", "get them out", "pull back", anything but "pull it." When my ears hear those words, I automatically think of demolition, having heard the term used plenty of times in that context.

Larry was a big real estate guy with plenty of experience around big buildings. Plus, I'm sure all the demolition guys had been talking to him for quite a while about how they were going to bring that building down as part of the overall plot, so he would certainly have heard the "pull it" phrase plenty.

What appears to my ears is that Larry screwed up in saying what he said, and then came back later and tried to fix the mistake. That is where your tendency to TRUST comes in... you trust Larry when he says that he meant to pull the firemen out.

Now, let's look at his second phrase, which is even more damning. He said "they made the decision to PULL and we watched the building collapse."

Who is the THEY? We assume it's the firemen, but perhaps not... perhaps it was somebody higher up, somebody who was calling the shots that day. And he said they "made the decision to pull", not that they made the decision to "pull the guys out" or "pull back" or "pull the team out." No, he said the word "pull" in a singular lingo fashion, as if he knew full well what that phrase meant, and as one who is familiar with the full meaning behind that single word used in that particular fashion.

It would be like a guy who works in a nuclear reactor saying "we decided the smartest thing to do was scram the reactor. They decided to scram and we watched the reactor shut down."

Using a special term like that in the way Larry used it is quite indicative of using special LINGO that has a special meaning.

Also, the first time he said "pull it" he pulls his lips to one side, indicating with a micro-expression that he was admitting to something that wasn't that easy to admit.

So, quite the contrary to your assertion, it is you and the other TRUSTERS who want to trust Larry and the official story, hearing what you want to hear in his words, misapplying the use of an English pronoun, and totally ignoring the following:

"They decided to PULL AND we watched the building collapse." This phrase is clearly an indication that it was the PULL that immediately preceded the WATCHING of the building's collapse. They pulled...we watched.

If the firemen had truly pulled out just as the building fell that would have been something he would have mentioned, since that would be something noteworthy. His words would have been more like this:

"They made the decision to pull out and just as they got out we watched the building collapse."

or

"They made the decision to pull out and after some time we watched the building collapse."

Either of those wordings would have eliminated the suspicion on his words. He is a native English speaker, so it is not hard to tell the difference between what he said, and what he would have said had it not been a demolition.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Dereks, you are looking at the top of a 47-story building. When they demolish the building, they first blow out the bottom supports in order to get the building to start folding in on itself,

Then the fact that the east penthouse started falling first destroys your silly cconspiracy theory that they blew out the bottom of the building!

Those windows "blew" out from explosives going off

But they blew out AFTER the building started collapsing... so that also destroys the explosives theory...,
...

OK -- assuming that the building started falling WHERE the alleged MAJOR damage and fire were going on, is making a huge assumption in the first place it wasn't a demolition. If it didn't start collapsing at the bottom -- then it is very much, double-triple more likely to be a demolition.

Let's see some video of collapsing buildings with windows blowing out WITHOUT explosives -- and likely they don't have structural beams found embedded in buildings a mile away.


>> if a building falls from the TOP down due to a fire -- anyone who believes that I am going to unequivocally say, is NOT a structural engineer. I'm not -- but here is something, very simple that seems to escape the notice of someone thinking that a fire is dropping a building from the top down; The lower floors NOT being compromised by fire HELD UP THE ENTIRE WEIGHT OF THE BUILDING before the fire - and it likely is STILL holding up the same weight when things are falling -- they don't get suddenly heavier.

The ONLY theory that can explain a top-down collapse is a Pancake Collapse -- and the unique bridge-like construction of WTC 1 and 2 could allow for it. However, it could not happen at free-fall speeds and it could not bring down the core, because BREAKING FREE of the core is the only way you lose the support of floors NOT on fire.

Buildings are designed to have TWICE the structural support required to hold the mass of the building and the WTC was designed with 4 times the strength needed -- a fact conveniently forgotten by all the experts who push to the public the "Trust us" theory -- that seems to work best on people screaming about "smaller government." The WTC was built after a large plane ran into the Empire State Building and it was designed to withstand 3 large airplanes at the same time before the final plans were approved because nobody had built this tall before.

So, WTC 7 did NOT have unique design that could have HAD a pancake collapse -- and a CORNER of the building, could not possibly collapse a steel structure straight down even if King Kong ripped the whole corner out. You pull one leg off a 4 leg table -- if it falls, if falls OVER. Don't bother me with your theories of how a VANILLA steel structured building falls straight down -- it would mean that it had more horizontal than vertical strength. It would also mean that this "office fire" concept, that weakens steel at BEST 50%, is somehow compromising all the other parts of the building.

The Chinese hotel that was entirely engulfed in flames and burnt for over 8 hours -- and we had a conspiracy debate about that -- had to be demolished because it would not fall. An airplane full of jet fuel is burning out in 15 minutes -- even if it's burning at ideal temperature with pure oxygen, it's not that much hotter than an office fire in a building -- but there is a difference between HEAT and Temperature and steel is a metal and the insulation is to keep it FROM SPREADING FIRES -- not to protect the steel. All other buildings behave as predicted, and they stand because the TEMPERATURE may get hot enough to weaken it, but it doesn't last long enough to build up enough heat load -- and the structure -- at least in the USA, is supposed to be twice that needed for the load.

So a 50% reduction in strength, doesn't make a steel structure fall. And even if the fire as hot as the melting point of steel, it would take many hours.

>> And did I choose to be an expert on building construction? AS others have said -- I didn't WANT to believe my government was involved in a false flag operation, I just had no choice in the matter because my brain does not accept information that cannot justify reality.

>> The first time I'd heard of the "pancake theory" -- It was from ME, talking to my soon to be wife when we were touring the WTC after the first bombing and she asked if the building could be taken down easily. I said a plane full of fuel could do it if you could get two or more floors to collapse at one time -- because the bridge construction depended on tensile strength -- if you slap one floor down, it pulls in the floor below and pops the pins holding the curtain wall which was designed to just hold twice the weight of the floor -- three floors slapping down could do it.

But never in my wildest dreams can I rationalize the floors falling BEFORE the floor above it hits. And the lower 30 floors with a good chunk of the floor should be still standing. There was nothing in the Trust Theory to explain how the lower part of the building suddenly loses the strength to hold up the building.

>> OK, I'm done. I have to turn my brain off tonight... and I'm sick of this topic because I have no respect for the "Truster" theories nor their myopic view of history and ignoring everything that has bee going on the last 8 years.

Originally posted by GenRadek
LS was speaking to the FIRE COMMANDER chief Nigro about pulling the fire fighting operation.

How could he be talking about pulling the fire fighting operations when chief Nigro stated he had evacuated the fire fighters before talking to LS?

Fire fighters were in and around the WTC7 at the time of the call.

Please show me any evidence that the fire fighters were in and around WTC 7 at the time of the call.

Originally posted by REMISNE

I mean we know the firefighters were out of the building before the call to Silverstien, so the fire commander was talking about the building when he stated PULL IT.

By the way you do not need explosives to bring down an already unstable building.

No YOU think they were out, but they were there. They were there TILL 3 FREAKING O'CLOCK. I posted the accounts of firefighters, I posted the account from the Commander on site who even states the time he gave the order. This all confirms there were firefighters IN and AROUND WTC7 till 3PM. until they got PULLED OUT. I do think you are no longer for real and just trolling now, and I do hope the mods notice this.

Ah so now there were no explosives. Ok so they used cables then? Fine, where were the cables? I did post a video of a demo crew using cables to bring down WTC5. And they even called it being "pulled down", (with cables.) so are you now suggesting WTC7 was pulled down with cables?


[edit on 2/15/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by downisreallyup

they made the decision to PULL and we watched the building collapse."

Who is the THEY? We assume it's the firemen, but perhaps not.

They as in the firemen, as in Larry Silverstein doesn't have the authority to make that call to pull the fireman out.

Why would the people detonating the building be firemen anyways...?